Sain v. Cedar Rapids Community School District

Supreme Court of Iowa · 2001 · Torts

TortsNegligent MisrepresentationEducational MalpracticeDutynegligent misrepresentationeducational malpracticeguidance counselorduty of care

Facts

Bruce Sain, a high school basketball player aspiring to compete at an NCAA Division I school, needed three NCAA-approved English courses during his senior year. After Sain wanted to drop an approved English class, his guidance counselor, Larry Bowen, allegedly told him that a new course, "Technical Communications," would be approved by the NCAA as a core English course, and Sain enrolled in and completed it. The school had failed to submit that course to the NCAA for approval, so it was not on the approved list, and the NCAA Clearinghouse later ruled that the course did not satisfy the core English requirement. Sain then lost his Division I basketball scholarship at Northern Illinois University and sued the school district for negligence and negligent misrepresentation.

Issue

Whether Iowa should recognize a negligence-based claim against a high school guidance counselor for allegedly providing inaccurate information about NCAA course eligibility, or whether such a claim is barred as educational malpractice. Also, whether the school district owed a duty to Sain to submit the course to the NCAA Clearinghouse for approval.

Rule

A claim is not barred as educational malpractice when it challenges a specific act of supplying specific information to a student, rather than classroom methodology, academic performance, curriculum, or other core educational judgments. Under Iowa's negligent misrepresentation doctrine, a duty arises only when the defendant is in the business or profession of supplying information to others; a high school guidance counselor falls within that category when providing specific information to a student for the student's guidance and reliance. Negligent misrepresentation applies to false information supplied with a duty of reasonable care, but it does not apply to mere nondisclosure, and a school has no duty to students to submit courses to the NCAA Clearinghouse simply because it has internal policies to do so.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a public high school in Des Moines, guidance counselor Elena Ruiz told senior Malik Turner that a particular dual-credit writing class already satisfied a named out-of-state university's freshman admission requirement. Malik switched classes in reliance on that advice, but the university later rejected the class and withdrew his conditional admission.

If Malik sues the school district, which is the strongest argument that his claim is not barred as educational malpractice?

Explanation. The majority distinguished barred educational-malpractice claims from claims based on a specific act of providing specific information requested by a student for reliance. A suit challenging concrete advice about external eligibility or admission requirements does not attack teaching methods, curriculum, student competency, or similar core educational judgments. The other choices overstate the rule or ignore the policy limits recognized by the court. (Derived from Sain v. Cedar Rapids Community School District (n.d.).)