569 P.3d 1027
Or. Ct. App.2025Background
- Plaintiff Dailey was accepted into the University of Portland's doctoral nursing program aiming to become a family nurse practitioner.
- Due to his wife's illness, Dailey took a reduced course load and a leave of absence before being allowed to re-enroll and granted extended time to finish.
- Dailey experienced difficulty securing clinical placements, allegedly because the university over-admitted students relative to available sites.
- In spring 2022, he was assigned preceptors, at least one of whom lacked required experience, and ultimately received a failing grade in his clinical course.
- After being told he could not complete the program in time, Dailey withdrew and brought claims for breach of contract (based on university documents) and negligence (for deficient clinical opportunities), seeking economic/emotional damages.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the university on both claims; Dailey appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statements in university handbooks/bulletins are contractually binding. | Dailey: Statements about program requirements are binding under longstanding Oregon precedent. | U. of Portland: Disclaimers in the handbooks and bulletins negate contractual effect. | Handbook disclaimer is effective; bulletin disclaimer not conspicuous—summary judgment reversed as to bulletin-based claim. |
| Whether program regulations/rules provide an independent standard of care for negligence. | Dailey: Oregon Board of Nursing rules set a higher standard of care enabling tort recovery. | U. of Portland: The rules are for public protection, not student's economic/emotional interests. | Rules do not support recovery of economic/emotional damages for education deficiencies. |
| Whether a "special relationship" allows recovery of economic/emotional damages in negligence. | Dailey: The student-university relationship in clinical placements meets special relationship criteria. | U. of Portland: No duty to protect students' economic/emotional wellbeing absent physical injury. | No special relationship exists justifying such damages—summary judgment for defendant affirmed. |
| Whether disclaimers in university documents were sufficiently conspicuous/effective. | Dailey: Disclaimers were inconspicuous/ambiguous and should not void the contract. | U. of Portland: Disclaimers were clear/conspicuous and bar contract claim. | Handbook disclaimer is conspicuous/effective; bulletin disclaimer is not—claims based on bulletin remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tate v. North Pacific College, 70 Or 160 (Or. 1914) (university handbook requirements may form enforceable contract if relied upon)
- Mobley v. Manheim Services Corp., 133 Or App 89 (Or. Ct. App. 1995) (conspicuous disclaimer in handbook can defeat contractual claims)
- Onita Pacific Corp. v. Trustees of Bronson, 315 Or 149 (Or. 1992) (economic loss in negligence actions requires duty beyond foreseeable harm)
- Conway v. Pacific University, 324 Or 231 (Or. 1996) (no special relationship between student and university for economic loss negligence claims)
- Moody v. Oregon Community Credit Union, 371 Or 772 (Or. 2023) (emotional distress damages in negligence only available for certain protected interests)
- Fazzolari v. Portland Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 303 Or 1 (Or. 1987) (identifying special duty circumstances in educational settings)
- Curtis v. MRI Imaging Services II, 327 Or 9 (Or. 1998) (emotional distress damages when professional standard of care breaches specific duty)