Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Adel v. Greensprings of Vermont, Inc.

United States District Court for the District of Vermont
363 F. Supp 2d 692 (2005)


Facts

During a ski vacation in Vermont, Leslie Adel (plaintiff) stayed in Unit 24 of Greenspring, an individually owned condominium that was part of a complex owned by Greensprings of Vermont, Inc. (Greensprings) (defendant). Greensprings owned and maintained the water supply for the condominiums, and the individual building owners received water bills that were calculated per capita. Robert Rubin (defendant) was the Greensprings employee responsible for water-system maintenance. During his stay, Adel used the facility’s swimming pool and spa, as well as the bathrooms and showers in Unit 24. After returning home from vacation, Adel fell ill and was diagnosed with Legionnaires’ disease, which was most often contracted by inhaling water droplets containing the Legionnella bacteria. Shortly thereafter, the Vermont Department of Health (Department) collected water samples from various water sources at Greensprings. After testing the samples, the Department found that some of the samples contained the same type of Legionnella bacteria found in Adel’s lungs. The Department also found that Greensprings’ water facilities were inadequately maintained. Adel brought suit against Greensprings under Vermont’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) title 9A § 2-314, alleging permanent physical damage as a result of the infection. Adel’s suit consisted of claims for strict liability and breach of the warranty of merchantability based on Greensprings’ failed maintenance of its water supply. Greensprings moved for summary judgment, arguing that (1) Greensprings and its employees could not be held strictly liable because they were not sellers of water within the meaning of the UCC and (2) water was not a good under the UCC.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Sessions, C.J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 173,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.