858 F.3d 34
1st Cir.2017Background
- Montany, an occupational-therapy master's student at UNE, injured her back during a practical exam when instructor McNeil (acting as a mock patient) allegedly dropped his 210‑lb weight during a transfer.
- Montany failed the practical exam, reported back pain days later, retook the exam without disclosing any disability and failed again; the program's Student Development Committee (SDC) later voted to dismiss her.
- Montany sued UNE and McNeil for negligence (against both) and breach of contract (against UNE); the district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
- The district court held that expert testimony was required to establish the standard of care and breach in the negligence claim because the conduct occurred in the context of a professional practical exam.
- The court also concluded Montany abandoned any contract claim based on the student handbook, never pleaded a contract claim based on the SDC plan, and could not invoke an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing under Maine law for university–student disputes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert testimony was required to prove duty/breach in negligence | McNeil's conduct (instructing use of a gait belt then dropping weight) was nontechnical and obviously negligent — no expert needed | The reasonableness of instructor conduct in a professional practical exam is a technical issue requiring expert proof | Held: Expert testimony required; summary judgment for defendants because plaintiff offered none |
| Applicability of the "obvious negligence" exception (no expert needed) | The negligence and harmful results were sufficiently obvious to lay jurors | The question involves professional training/testing methods beyond common knowledge | Held: Exception does not apply; conduct related to administering practical exams is within experts' domain |
| Contract claim premised on UNE student handbook | Handbook provisions created enforceable contractual obligations (or supported related SDC obligations) | Plaintiff abandoned reliance on the handbook; handbook language disclaims contractual intent | Held: Handbook-based claim abandoned; handbook likely not a binding contract under Maine law |
| Claim for implied duty of good faith / remedy for arbitrary conduct by university | UNE owed a standalone duty not to act arbitrarily or in bad faith toward students; jury should decide | Maine limits implied duty of good faith to insurance and U.C.C. contexts; no clear Maine authority extending it to private universities | Held: No recognized implied good‑faith duty in this context under Maine law; summary judgment appropriate on this theory |
Key Cases Cited
- Cyr v. Giesen, 108 A.2d 316 (Me. 1954) (expert testimony ordinarily required where standard of care is within experts' knowledge)
- Maravell v. R.J. Grondin & Sons, 914 A.2d 709 (Me. 2007) (elements of negligence and need for expert testimony when issue is beyond common knowledge)
- Searles v. Trs. of St. Joseph's Coll., 695 A.2d 1206 (Me. 1997) (expert testimony generally required for athletic‑trainer standard of care; narrow exception where jurors can apply common knowledge)
- Walter v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 748 A.2d 961 (Me. 2000) (pharmacist's failure to follow clear procedures presented obvious negligence not requiring expert proof)
- Millien v. Colby Coll., 874 A.2d 397 (Me. 2005) (declining to adopt fixed standards for contractual relationships between private colleges and students; court affirmed that student handbook reservation clauses can preclude contract formation)