Hate ads? Verify for LSD+ → Learn More

Case Citation
Legal Case Name

MULLIN v. MUNICIPAL CITY OF SOUTH BEND Case Brief

Supreme Court of Indiana1994
639 N.E.2d 278

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: A city was sued after a 911 dispatcher failed to send an ambulance to a house fire where a child died. The court held the city owed no specific duty to the victims because it made no explicit promise of aid upon which the victims detrimentally relied.

Legal Significance: This case establishes the controlling test in Indiana for when a government’s general duty to the public transforms into a specific, private duty owed to an individual, requiring an explicit assurance of aid and justifiable, detrimental reliance by the injured party.

MULLIN v. MUNICIPAL CITY OF SOUTH BEND Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

A neighbor reported a house fire to the South Bend 911 dispatcher, stating she believed people were inside. The dispatcher sent fire trucks but no ambulance, in accordance with an internal policy. The dispatcher only informed the neighbor that the fire department was on its way. Upon arriving at the scene, firefighters requested an ambulance. During the delay, one of the plaintiff’s children, Shawn Mullin, died, and another, Kathleen, was injured. The plaintiff, Jeri Mullin, filed a negligence action against the City of South Bend for the dispatcher’s failure to send an ambulance immediately. The City moved for summary judgment, arguing it was immune under the Indiana Tort Claims Act and, alternatively, that it owed no private duty to the Mullin family. The trial court granted summary judgment for the City on the grounds that it owed no private duty. The record contained no evidence that Mullin was aware of the 911 call or that the City had made any specific assurance to her or the neighbor that an ambulance would be dispatched, nor was there evidence of any detrimental reliance.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does a municipal government owe a private duty of care to an individual for the provision of emergency services when it has not made an explicit assurance of aid upon which the individual justifiably and detrimentally relied?

No. The City of South Bend did not owe a private duty Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Does a municipal government owe a private duty of care to an individual for the provision of emergency services when it has not made an explicit assurance of aid upon which the individual justifiably and detrimentally relied?

Conclusion

This decision solidifies the public duty doctrine in Indiana and establishes a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ul

Legal Rule

For a governmental entity's general public duty to provide emergency services to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscin

Legal Analysis

The Indiana Supreme Court first addressed the City's claim of immunity under Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Summary unavailable

No flash summary is available for this opinion.

Hate ads? Verify for LSD+ → Learn More