*1 115 actions, he m Santos, engaged but conduct prove Board failed to with and, nature, by very is dishonest its Herrera and which between communications adversely ability practice the rule. reflects on his scope fell within Santos no a longer public law. We can consider Charges. 4. Other to be a viable sanction. reprimand that the with the commission agree lawyers, public fortunately, For most al- prove remaining Board failed reprimand represents wake-up call. For by convincing prepon- leged violations lawyers, regrettably, reprimand other Although the of the evidence. derance only perpetuates by unethical conduct cre- arrangement of the circumstances fee Herrera, immunity. ating false sense rec- and the appeared suspicious, Penuelas unfortunately, prior has failed to use his maintained Herrera was keeping ord reprimands wake-up as a call. nonexistent, if the evidence sloppy, Considering all the circumstances the claimed violations. failed to case, the relevant facts of this we indefi- nitely the license of Luis Herrera suspend Discipline. VI. possible law with no reinstate- practice in an The sanction to result filing months following ment for three action rests with the attorney disciplinary ap- shall opinion. suspension of this case. Iowa Su facts of each particular of law. ply aspects practice to all Bd. Ethics & Conduct preme Ct. of Prof'l Any application Ct. R. 118.12. (Iowa 1999). Carr, N.W.2d v. governed reinstatement shall be Court the cir determining In the sanction under Rule Costs are assessed to Herr- 118.18. case, of each we consider cumstances era. See 118.22. Ct. R. violations, for de “the need nature of terrence, mainte protection public, LICENSE SUSPENDED. bar as a reputation
nance of the
whole, prac and the fitness [violator’s] Supreme Iowa Ct. Bd.
tice law.” of Prof'l Lemanski, v.
Ethics & Conduct (Iowa 2000). 11, 14
N.W.2d apparent ap
It that Herrera practice of law fast and loose.
proaches the by the circum revealed This is II, Appellant, Bruce E. SAIN case, by the three of this but also stances v. suspension his reprimands, as well as prior COMMUNITY CEDAR RAPIDS Eighth practice of law before from the Rap Cedar DISTRICT SCHOOL a/k/a Appeals. See Iowa Su Circuit Court Community Schools, Appellee. ids Conduct preme Bd. Ethics & Ct. of Prof'l 2000) (Iowa Morris, No. 98-2273. (court attorney’s prior disci may consider Supreme Court of Iowa. history). Unfortunately, prior plinary change have done little reprimands 25, 2001. April disposition. Equally unfortu Herrera’s nate, only engaged has now not Herrera type of behavior
conduct which mirrors disciplinary prior
which resulted
H7 *4 Updegraff Anne E. Riley Tom Firm, P.L.C., Law Rapids, ap- Cedar for pellant.
Matthew G. Novak Thad and J. Collins Pickens, Barnes & Abernathy, Cedar Rapids, appellee. for CADY, Justice. appeal requires
This us to decide wheth- an action negligence er for should be rec- ognized upon based inaccurate information concerning requirements the course compete in intercollegiate sports at a Na- Collegiate tional Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I university as a fresh- allegedly man given high to a stu- school by guidance dent counselor. The district court no found cause of action as a existed matter of law granted summary judg- ment. light On review the facts student, most favorable to the we conclude summary judgment improperly was grant- ed. We reverse the decision of the district court and remand for proceedings. further Background I. Facts and Proceed- ings. High
Bruce Sain attended Jefferson Rapids junior School in Cedar during his years. and senior Jefferson is included within the Rapids Community Cedar require- the NCAA core course to meet member was a District. Sain School English. for ments at Jefferson team varsity basketball receiving a aspirations maintained year at his senior Jefferson began Sain major play basketball scholarship tri- During fall of 1995. first ac- many basketball He received college. satisfactorily enrolled in and mester he school, in- during high and awards colades English an course entitled completed basketball to the all-state cluding selection in- This course was “World Literature.” team. approved core cluded in the NCAA list registered He to take a English courses. at Jefferson counselor Sain’s Literature” dur- “English entitled course generally Bowen was Larry Bowen. was This class was the second trimester. ing credits high familiar with a core by the NCAA as approved by the imposed requirements course Sain, however, dis- course. was English incoming student-athletes NCAA Bow- class and met with satisfied with the sports as a freshman compete eligible to it add drop if he could en to determine which main- Division I institutions at those suggested course. Bowen English another One such membership in the NCAA. tain *5 course enti- English a different Sain take three complete to a student requires rule It was Communications.” tled “Technical by the approved English courses years of- in course modern communications NCAA, in mathe- as core courses as well first for the by the school district fered science, matics, the sciences. social year. 1995-96 school during the time high school maintains a list of The NCAA com- course would be the Bowen believed the satisfy which school courses for each in computers. interest patible with Sain’s for each disci- requirements course core that the Bowen told Sain Additionally, known as Form 48—H. This list is pline. by the as approved be NCAA course would the it offers submits courses highA school subsequently English a core course.1 Sain A approval. to the NCAA for to students from his “English dropped Literature” as the known NCAA separate organization in the “Technical and enrolled schedule respon- Clearinghouse is Eligibility Initial satisfactori- course. He Communications” the approving evaluating sible course, as well as another the ly completed Clearinghouse submitted. courses the final trimester. during course English those high for each school identifies “Techni- to include the The school failed core courses qualify as courses which list of course on the cal Communications” any reflect annually to updates the list ap- the NCAA for classes submitted This list is sent changes or additions. typically high school Although proval. Clearinghouse. high each year each list of its courses submitted a NCAA, the “Technical Commu- required some of the it left had satisfied Sain in it submitted prior to course off list disciplines nications” courses in the various the course was Consequently, needed 1995. year, his senior but beginning was Clearinghouse and by the approved dur- English courses approved take three However, Form 48-H. included on year of his senior the three trimesters ing testified in to Sain. Sain light most favorable deny Sain district The counselor and school him the "Tech- deposition told approved by the would be was told the course .Bowen "would course nical Communications” case are also critical facts in the NCAA.Other Clearinghouse an En- as summary by the NCAA passed purpose of dispute. For the in however, glish credit course.” the facts in a we consider judgment, approved against voluntarily the course had been two of was later NCAA the three universities in Iowa as a state dismissed. English approved core course. It was also against The action the school district by the National Council of Teachers of separate was based on negligence claims of English. and negligent misrepresentation under the During final high trimester Restatement of Torts section school, accepted Sain was offered and a 552(1) (1977). Sain claimed Bowen five-year full scholarship basketball provide breached a competent aca- University Northern in beginning Illinois demic advice concerning eligibility to fall semester of 1996. Pursuant to the participate Division I sports fresh- rules, letter of intent NCAA Sain man. He also claimed the school district agreed to enroll at Northern Illinois Uni- was failing to submit
versity and participate intercollegiate “Technical Communications” course to the sports university as a member of the men’s pre-approval. NCAA for exchange basketball team in full The school district summary moved for scholarship. ride athletic The Northern judgment. The granted district court University Illinois basketball program par- It negligence theory motion. found the ticipates in I Division of NCAA. was a claim for educational malpractice, graduated High Sain from Jefferson and determined required the claim was spring Shortly School of 1996. after be dismissed because a school counselor graduation, Sain received a letter from the has no to a student as a matter lawof Clearinghouse. NCAA The Clearinghouse to use reasonable care providing course *6 informed Sain that the “Technical Commu- It information. also found the claim for he during nications” course took the sec- negligent misrepresentation did not apply satisfy ond En- trimester did not the core to an educational setting, but was limited glish requirements. This meant two to commercial or business transactions. English of the three by courses taken Sain during year his senior had been accepted appeals. Sain He claims the nature of by the Clearinghouse, NCAA and Sain fell the relationship between a student and one-third credit short of the core English guidance counselor imposes a on the requirements participate in Division I counselor to use giv- reasonable care when basketball as a freshman. Sain and ing specific information about the course University requested Northern Illinois a requirements for college admission to or waiver request from the NCAA. The was participation in college athletics and sub- scholarship. denied and Sain lost his aAs mitting courses approval. to the NCAA for result, Sain was unable to attend Northern recognized He also claims the negli- tort of Illinois University during the 1996-97 gent misrepresentation enough is broad year compete school and basketball for hold a guidance counselor liable for provid- the school.2 ing specific per- information to a student brought
Sain against taining this action required to the courses and credits school district and The necessary the NCAA. claim pursue post-high goals. options 2. A years student several if eligibility declared otherwise available to ineligible compete as a freshman. One Sain, however, freshmen. did not have the option university is to enroll at the at the University funds to enroll at Northern Illinois expense years student's own and retain three expense. at his own eligibility opposed of athletic five to the by of a counselor student Scope of Review. II. placement particular of a in a student rulings on motions for We review class. of er summary judgment for corrections Teague Mosley, v. at law. rors Although there is no established 1996). (Iowa 646, 648 We “review N.W.2d malpractice, definition of educational our court to de record before the district categories three recognized reveal ac of material fact whether an issue termine complaints tion centers on about rea exists, ... the district court whether engaged by sonableness of conduct Howell law.” v. Mer properly applied the in providing educational institutions their (Iowa 1998). Co., 278, 280 ritt of teaching, supervising, basic functions testing placing, and students relation Malpractice. III. Educational ship performance the level academic begin considering nature We competency student. See Dan recog refused to Sain’s claim. have Dobbs, B. Law at The Torts 690- nize a cause of action Iowa for edu (2000) Dobbs]; Timothy [hereinafter Vanderloo, malpractice. Moore cational Davis, Examining Malprac Educational (Iowa 1986). 108, 113-15 Con tice a Cause Jurisprudence: Should properly court dis sequently, district Studentr-Athletes?, Action Created Be the action under Moore if Sain’s missed [hereinaf Denv. U.L.Rev. 61 (1992) recovery case theory of in this falls within theory ter alleges profession Davis]. negligence. parameters educational analogous al misconduct to medical and Moore, cat recognized In three legal malpractice, impose seeks to malpractice. of educational Id. egories provide level of on schools edu aca category The first involves basic Davis, appropriate cation the student. misrepresentation instruction or demic 69 Denv. at 61. U.L.Rev. Id. performance. the level of academic malpractice almost uni Educational placing category The second deals of action versally rejected as cause be in a place specific failing to student claim the issues framed must cause Id. The third cate setting. educational *7 context necessarily be answered in the of per of gory supervision concerns student principles duty those of and reasonable policy Id. identified five formance. the tort law of ness of care associated with make for our refusal to these cate reasons CenCor, Tolman, negligence. v. Inc. 868 reasons include gories actionable. These (Colo.1994). 396, we recog P.2d As 399 adequate of an of the absence standard Moore, nized in these can principles tort care, uncertainty determining damages, in difficult, nearly impos extremely if not placed poten the burden on schools sible, setting to an for a apply academic litigation probably that would tial flood of Moore, variety of reasons. 386 result, edu given the deference 114-15; Gupta see at New out its system carry cational internal 574, Hosp., Britain Gen. 239 Conn. general reluctance operations, (1996). 111, This, A.2d other regulated by to interfere in an area courts Moore, in discussed policy considerations Id. at 114-15. legislative standards. duty rejection of a of care argues action The school district Sain’s within an academic environment. supervision placement within the falls generally the claim in this case malpractice. Although It categories of educational the educational functions su- supervision the action relates to asserts involves pervision placement, it is unrelated distinguishable case is from Moore its policy most of the concerns in identified facts. categories malprac-
Moore. Unlike the Our Moore, recognize failure to claims tice described in the claim of mis- malpractice educational actually repre representation this case does not chal- sents a lenge determination that the methodology classroom or care theories of a of education. It is also school does not extend unrelated to aca- to the circum performance demic or stances which expected recognize the lack of fall within the skills. It does not categories We, intervene into the inter- malpractice. of educational operations, nal curriculum course, or academic de- recognize a school has a duty of institution, cisions of an any educational or care to a student under different circum assigned function of a school under state Thus, stances. schools or schoolteachers Finally, law. it does not interfere subject can be to liability negligence legislative policies standards and compe- failing to exercise reasonable care in su Instead, tency. the thrust of the action pervising students or maintaining danger specific asserts a act of providing specific ous conditions. See Anderson v. Webster requested by a student under Dist., City Cmty. 263, Sch. 620 N.W.2d circumstances which the school knew or (Iowa 2000); City Cedar Falls v. Cedar should have known the student relying was Dist., Falls Cmty. 11, Sch. 17- upon the information qualify for future (Iowa 2000). A clearly owes a opportunities. educational athletic In this duty of reasonable care ato student. The context, the resolution of the claim does question we face in this case is whether not require courts to daily interfere to exercise reasonable care ex operation of the school challenge or tends to either providing information to a policies education. See Dobbs student under the alleged circumstances Furthermore, there is little fear that this case submitting courses to the appropriate an standard of care cannot be NCAA. articulated. See id. The claim is more compatible with other claims for misrepre- Negligent Misrepresentation— IV. against professionals sentation by clients Providing Information. sought
who have out expertise. their In case, this under the state the facts we The tort of negligence has developed must accept, Sain looked to advice from into broad and open-ended cause of ac- Bowen, who was in a position provide tion. See Dobbs at 257-58. Unlike Thus, requested advice. the same dif- the intentional trespassory torts that are ficulties of applying negligence standards generally geared conduct, specific toward to claims of educational malpractice do not *8 cause of negligence action for may find in exist this case. support in any most conduct. See id. Al- though the familiar elements reject duty, must be careful not of to all care, cause, breach of proximate claims that arise out of a school environ- and dam- ages established, ment must always under the umbrella of be any educational most Instead, malpractice. Id. at 692. circumstances spe- exempted by a special cific facts of each case rule or a must be statute can be prove considered used to light in of policy 112, § the relevant these concerns that elements. See id. at 264-65. rejection drive the of malprac- Negligence educational clearly emerged has as “the tice light actions. See id. In of those central focus of modern tort law.” Peter policy considerations, Lake, we conclude this F. Common Duty Law in Negli- negligent misrepresentation has taken the The Recent Consolidation gence Law: of Analy- Expansion on the limiting group persons Consensus form of “the of of Duty and the New Conservative sis liable, may be [a] whom defendant short of of Policy Liability Limiting Use Consid- foreseeability of possible harm.” Kee- of erations, 1503, Diego San L.Rev. 107, § ton at 745. (1997). of tort expansive nature negli recognized We first tort of applying challenged courts gently giving misinformation with this negligence accommo- principles liability Ryan scope limitation on of human growth date into new areas its 1969). Kanne, (Iowa interaction, limit the tort properly but to well. id. case, within certain boundaries as permitted party that we a third In at 1504-05. reasonably upon who relied financial prepared by an accountant to statements recog- is
Although misrepresentation
negligence
against
of maintain a
action
separate
nized
and
cause
as
distinct
action, misrepresentation
negli-
based on
accountant
for
misinformation
gent
typically
conduct has
been addressed
statements when the accountant knew the
negli-
the framework of a claim for
within
was
for
benefit
information
intended
per-
conduct has caused
gence when the
party. Ryan,
of the third
damage. W.
injury
property
sonal
or
pro
recognized
One of im misrepresentation any oth- profession employment, or or in case, a in poses duty particular of care a in he pecuni- er transaction which has a distinguish between those transactions interest, ary supplies false information a where defendant is in the business or guidance for the of others in busi- their of profession supplying to oth information transactions, subject liability is ness ers from those are transactions that arm’s pecuniary by for loss caused to them length and adversarial. See Molo Oil Co. justifiable upon their reliance infor- Sales, Inc., City v. River Truck Ford 578 mation, if he^fails to exercise reasonable (Iowa 222, 1998); N.W.2d 227 Fry v. in competence care or com- obtaining or Mount, (Iowa 263, 554 N.W.2d 265-66 municating the information. 1996); Freeman, see also N.W.2d at 516 (Second) 552(1). § of Restatement Torts 838; Miller, 905, Haupt v. 514 N.W.2d 910 (Iowa 1994); Meier, 454 at N.W.2d 581-82. actions, negligence As with all recognize the former circumstances negligent misrepre an essential element of justify the imposition duty of a of care is that sentation the defendant must owe a person because a transaction between a in duty of care to plaintiff. In the con profession the business or supplying of negligent misrepresentation, text of this information person seeking and a informa person supplies means the who infor compatible special tion is to a relationship. duty mation must owe a person to the Meier, 581; See 454 N.W.2d at see 2 whom the information is Al provided. al., Fowler V. et Harper The Law Torts though the supports Restatement a broad 7.6, (2d ed.1986) § at 412-13 view, [hereinafter er we have determined that this Harper] (“remedy only misrepre arises when the information provid principally sentation by against [is] ed in those who persons the business or profession in an essentially advise supplying nonadversarial ca information to Hen others. Co., pacity”). course, A Supply special dricks v. Great relationship, Plains 609 (Iowa 486, 2000); important is an N.W.2d see factor to the impo Meier v. Inc., 576, Alfa-Laval, of a duty 581 sition of care under claim (Iowa 1990) (providing negligence. false information is ex J.A.H. rel. R.M.H. v. P.C., if person Assocs., 256, not actionable is not the Wadle & 589 N.W.2d (Iowa 1999). profession Moreover, or business inform 259 supplying person ation).3 Thus, when deciding whether the profession supplying information for 1997) (same). 3. language of section 552 ex does not The comments to section 552 pressly provide applies that the tort imposition indicate that the of a of care persons profession who are in the business or supplying upon information is based Instead, supplying requires information. it presence pecuniary of a interest the trans- provider supply "in the (Second) action. Restatement business, profession employ course of his or c, are, then, d. ways cmts. There two under ment,” supply or to any information "in other requirement. the Restatement establish this transaction in has pecuniary which he inter supplied person by The information can be 552(1) est.” Restatement Torts information, provide whose business it is to (1977); see State Bronster v. United States person pecuniary or the otherwise has a inter- 32, Corp., Steel 82 Hawaii 919 P.2d 307- person est in transaction in which the (tort (1996) applicable supplying when in Id.; supplies the information. State see formation either for the of others in Bronster, Notwithstanding, 919 P.2d the course of transaction which one has a interest, persons we have limited tort to in the pecuniary or in the course one's business, profession/or profession employment); supplying business informa- Smith Cos., (Minn. Brutger tion to others.
125
105,
§
dealings.
Keeton
at 726. Con
advisory
in an
See
of
acts
guidance
the
others
thought
of
manifestly
sequently,
generally
is
aware
the use
the tort is
to
capacity and
in-
put,
only
will be
apply
the information
to business transactions. See
that
purpose.
758,
it
that
See
supply
Pickering,
for
Pickering
tends
v.
434 N.W.2d
(Second)
§
(S.D.1989) (claim
Torts
552 cmt.
of
Restatement
against
762
husband
a;
472,
1350-51;
at
2
also Dobbs
see
wife for
did
negligent misrepresentation
7.6,
person
at
Such
is
Harper
405-06.
transaction);
not
from a
arise
business
the use
position weigh
in a
for
also
Omer,
423,
952
Robinson v.
S.W.2d
428
magnitude and
against
information
(Tenn.1997) (advice supplied
guid
for
was
might
attend
probability of
loss
affairs,
business);
in personal
ance
not
see
if it is incorrect.
use of the information
D.M.W.,
284,
also
596 N.W.2d
G.A.W.
(Second)
§ 552
of Torts
cmt.
Restatement
(Minnesota
(Minn.Ct.App.1999)
290
courts
circumstances,
a.
these
the fore-
Under
only recognized
negligent
have
the tort of
support
impo-
harm
seeability
helps
of
misrepresentation in a
or com
business
duty of
J.A.H. ex rel.
of a
care. See
sition
hand,
mercial setting). On the other
(reasonable
R.M.H.,
supplying information to others. originally gave Ryan rise to the tort. In question, In deciding this we we applies observe indicated the tort accountants, that those same characteristics which exist but logically can be extended a person when is found to be the busi- to other professional purveyors of informa (tort ness tion. supplying Ryan, others at 402 could high abstractors); also exist the case of a apply attorneys school counselor. The counselor and student see Fry, For have a relationship beyond purposes which extends negligent misrepre tort of sentation, a relationship in an arm’s length high found conclude coun school advisory person transaction. It is in nature selor profession is also in the not adversarial. The counselor supplying information to others. *12 supply counselor intended to the informa that our ex
We understand recipient tion knew to or intended negligent misrepre the tort of pansion of through it and reli supply to loss suffered high counsel- to include a sentation ance the information in a upon transaction impose will relationship and a student or the counselor intended the information to school counselors. greater burden on v. Int’l influence. See Knutson Bitterroot course, concern, of that this There is a (Mont.2000) Inc., 554, 5 Sys., P.3d 560 chilling have a effect may greater burden (section 552(1) requires plaintiff that counselors, may who refrain on school justified was relying upon informa providing from information because tion); Collins, also 20 see Rubinstein v. However, any con potential liability. for (5th Cir.1994). 160, Additionally, F.3d 172 by the further limita cern is diminished applies only the tort to observe 552(2), in section which expressed tions false information and does not to apply as follows: provides personal opinions or statements of future v. intent.4 See Darst Illinois Farmers (2) (3), Except as stated Subsection (Ind.Ct. Co., 579, Ins. 716 n. 6 N.E.2d 584 (1) liability is stated Subsection (claim App.1999) failed because statements limited loss suffered opinions); made were Wilkinson v. Sho 194, Inc., 1149, ney’s, 269 Kan. 4 P.3d 1165 (a) by person or one of a limited (2000) (tort negligent misrepresentation for persons whose benefit group apply does not to statements of future guidance supply and he intends to intent); Washington v. Trimble State or that the the information knows 88, Univ., 259, 140 P.2d 264 Wash.2d 993 it; recipient supply intends (2000) (claim failed because statements false); actually made were not see also (b) through upon it in a trans- reliance Restatement 552 cmts. he the informa- action that intends b, Finally, only imposed e. the standard is or knows that the tion to influence reasonableness, one and the elements of in a recipient so intends or substan- must proximate damage also be cause tially similar transaction. (Second) of Restatement Torts shown. (3) one is liability who under (limited damages for 552B duty
public give Thus, the information limita these misrepresentation). help promote tions will to continue by any of the extends to loss suffered in important public policy encouraging persons for benefit the class of whose high school counselors teraction between created, any of the transac- students, and maintain flow protect it is intended to tions which necessary information to students. them. have observe that some states We also Thus, liability negligent misrepresenta- for and teach giving enacted statutes schools by a per- liability. tion is limited to harm suffered immunity any ers from Dist., 68 Compton v. Sch. son whose Brown benefit Unified case, v. Credit tag circumstances. See Bittel Farm In whether the counsel- this the issue 651, Kansas, P.C.A., 265 Kan. alleged was Servs. Cent. or's statement a statement of 491, (1998); 501 see Wilkinson present prediction has not been 962 P.2d fact 1149, Inc., (Kan. Shoney’s, 4 P.3d 1165 may question law v. raised. This issue Nevertheless, courts, 2000). pre it is not an issue depend but will on appeal particular on at this time. language used but all the surround- sented 128 171, 114, Cal.Rptr.2d provide to the informa
Cal.App.4th apply failure (1998) tion, (immunity misrepresentations from to the but disclosure of information. scope employment); P’ship made Hen- See Int’l within Outlook Windows York Univ., 552, (D.Neb. Corp., F.Supp.2d dricks v. Clemson 339 S.C. 896-97 (tort 2000). Thus, (S.C.Ct.App.2000) imposition S.E.2d of a act a claim of providing claims shields educational institutions false informa *13 acts); liability for negligent support imposition from see tion does not the of a 259, disclosing duty Dobbs for not information. case, In this we find has sub Sain claim can negligence for be A sufficient to withstand sum mitted facts on both based actions and inactions. How claim mary judgment guid on the that the ever, liability pro for the failure to act to that negligently ance counselor told him a largely tect another from harm is restrict English would specific course be certified ed to those where is a situations there by Clearinghouse. NCAA rela the The parties. between special relationship the high between school counselor tionship the v. Alpha Lambda Chi Fra Garofalo student, activity together and the (Iowa 647, 2000); 616 ternity, N.W.2d 652 engaged by Sain and the counselor 234, Hogan, v. Bohan 567 N.W.2d 236 case, give duty this is sufficient to rise ato (Iowa 1997); Rains, v. Fiala N.W.2d 519 for counselor to use reasonable care (Iowa 1994). 386, It is essentially informing when a student that a will class upon relationship a dependence based of by be approved the NCAA. We continue to expectation protection. and an of See Re the tort of negligent misrepresen confine statement 314A cmt. b persons tation to in the business or profes (1965). others, sion supplying of information to Nevertheless, duty imposed a of care is high but find that a school counselor falls protect against to risk foreseeable of within that language policies because harm. The failure of a school to district duty which of a imposition approval by submit course for NCAA person applies high care on such a to a Clearinghouse would not increase the haz- school counselor. taking ard of student an unapproved If a course. school fails to submit a Negligent Misrepresentation— V. course, the course would not be included Failure to Class. Submit approved on the list. The absence of the The prong negli second of Sain’s course from the would reli- list not induce gence upon claim is based the failure ance, and it would not make foreseeable the school district include the to “Technical harm that would result to a student Communications” on course the list of an taking unapproved course under courses submitted to the Like the NCAA. that the belief course was fact approved. claim, first Sain asserts the school district Thus, duty there is no students for a duty had a submit care to the course high school district or a school counselor and breached the when it to do failed Clearing- submit courses to the NCAA so. asserts internal policies Sain Garofalo, house. See at 654 N.W.2d the school to all courses approv submit (failure policy fraternity to follow does Clearinghouse al the NCAA supports tort); give rise to an actionable Smith duty. such a City Dubuque, (Iowa 1985) (breach begin We by recognizing procedures of internal action). misrepresentation tort negligent give does does rise to cause of are in the properly professionals court cators business conclude the district on claim. summary judgment they this supplying hope information. And granted jobs information-giving take their serious- VI. Conclusion. generation ly, for the future the next district court We conclude on depends them. summary on judgment granting erred in is, question when academic advice misrepresentation
the claim of awry, permitted goes should student high provided by involving seek from the courts? The an- relief student. counselor guidance school date, concedes, majority swer negligent misrepresentation The tort of always “no.” Good reasons been abound high for a enough to include broad Vanderloo, this decision. See Moore v. counselor use reason (Iowa (dis- 1986) 113-15 specific information providing able care in *14 claim mal- missing alleged of educational counselor guidance a when the student are practice). ill-equipped pass the Courts knowledge specific need judgment the on the wisdom and value of provides information information in of a counselor- curriculum. Id. have to the the course school’s chosen We student reason relationship, and student historically student thus been to do so. disinclined cir ably upon the information under relies effectively jettisons The this majority knows which the counselor cumstances that by theorizing guidance sound doctrine relying know the student is or should that counselors, being in business of fur- the we Additionally, upon the information. information, nishing within the ambit come properly grant district court conclude the (Second) of section 552 of Restatement summary judgment on the claim of ed liable, They may majority Torts. misrepresentation involving holds, misrepre- tort of negligent for the failure to submit course school’s attach liability sentation. For under Clearinghouse approval. rule, however, must be misinformation AND REMANDED. REVERSED guidance of others in supplied “for ” Restate- their business transactions. justices except All concur NEUMAN (emphasis TERNUS, JJ., ment dissent. who added). here, think, major- I that the It is NEUMAN, (dissenting). Justice logic experience. flies in the. face of ity’s majority’s I The respectfully dissent. thorough, decision, while methodical and opinion, majority’s one accept To experience. exalts over ultimately logic mentoring willing must be view spells disaster for the law. result guidance between a counselor relationship For, know, the life of the law as we all no than a busi- and a different student experience.5 logic but purveyor relationship between ness I disagree information and consumer.
Experience teaches us that may in an live premise. with that along myriad others counselors— me age, experience but tells public dispense volumes our schools— dif- knowledge in school is basis, sharing, it daily some of information on Indeed, information in than the sale of ferent perhaps good. not so good, some marketplace. majority forcefully edu- argues, as the Holmes, Jr., (1881). Law The Common 5. Oliver Wendell I am “flood- also concerned about the
gates” discouraged us from argument direction in
moving this Moore. See
Moore, Implicit at 115. that,
majority’s reasoning is the suggestion eligibility
when it to NCAA rules comes scholarships,
and athletic is the business
name of But the action game. cause of today will recognize not be limited to students, apply
athletes. It will to all
whether music or talented debate of encouraging
academics. Instead sound
academic will guidance, today’s decision
discourage advising altogether. I cannot
join it. J.,
TERNUS, joins this dissent.
Iowa SUPREME COURT BOARD OF
PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND
CONDUCT, Complainant, STOWERS, Respondent.
Michael R.
No. 01-0014. Court
Supreme of Iowa.
April