Wickstrom v. North Idaho College

Kimmelman, agreed the Court requirement court that the first lower Washington, Strickland v. U.S. (1976), 104 S.Ct. 80 L.Ed.2d 674 in- counsel,

competence of was met and re-

manded for a determination of the other

Strickland requirement that the defendant prejudiced by attorney’s his

had been Court, present-

competence. Yet this when

ed with defense counsel sins much more Kim-

egregious than those established

melman refuses ap- to reconsider Estes’

peal light guidance provid- of the recent Washington, our brethren D.C. again facing up

Once this Court avoids responsibilities letting in favor of own

“George” do it. WICKSTROM, Hash,

Russell Kenneth Ryan,

Bruce Bennett and Kevin

Plaintiffs-Appellants, COLLEGE and

NORTH IDAHO Chastain,

Charles D.

Defendants-Respondents.

No. 16202.

Supreme Idaho. Court of

Aug. d’Alene, Hofmeister, Coeur D.

Everett plaintiffs-appellants. d’Alene, Knudson, T. Coeur James defendants-respondents. grounds granted on that

HUNTLEY, ment and same Justice. stated a cause of complaint the trial This arises from proceeding rejected ap- action in The trial court tort. respondent’s motion for grant of court’s pellants’ argument a claim contract that appel- judgment grounds on summary stated, ruling had been that “misfeasance” College against Idaho North lants’ claims rather “nonfeasance” was the core than instructors, D. its Charles Chas- and one of therefore, claims, appellants’ and tain, applicable by claims were tort barred Additionally, was in tort. causé of action Act. provisions of the Idaho Tort Claims damages sought the court noted whether, as upon to decide are called We lay the cause of action in tort reflected that court, appellants’ claims found the trial contract, rather neither rescission than as were, consequently, barred lay in tort and requested. nor restitution were Act, Tort Claims by provisions Idaho possible claims state a whether such also or The that the Ida- trial court further held of action applied Act and that its ho Tort Claims Hash, Wickstrom, (I.C. 6-907) Kenneth provision Russell notice had not been § Ryan Accordingly, summary and enrolled complied Bruce Bennett Kevin with. (Millwright)” “Maintenance Mechanic granted. a judgment was College, taught by Idaho course at North We address issue of whether first D. The school bulletin Charles Chastain. are, fact, appellants claims barred completion averred successful provisions of the Tort Claims Act. Idaho course, qualified graduates would be the claims Secondly, we discuss whether journey- employment “entry as level a action in con- could have stated However, upon men.” their successful tract. completion discov- they qualified entry- ered that were not THE I. TORT CLAIM journeymen. level district, part junior college North As of a discovery, sought After this le- College may in its Idaho sue and be sued demand, advice, gal and letter of dated 33-2108). (I.C. govern- own As name § August 21, was sent to North Idaho entity, the Tort Claims Act mental appellants’ College detailing dissatisfaction potential limitation liabili- serves as a on and with the course their intent take (I.C. ty. seq.). et 6-901 § legal compen- if the did not attending sate them for sacrifices made case, however, any instant discus- letter, the course for eleven months. validity sion of substance or however, appellants’ failed to state names against lants’ claim North Idaho Col- tort addresses, any damages and amount moot, given appellants have lege any had incurred and the nature provision notice failed with the injuries suffered. (I.C. 6-907). I.C. 6-907 I.T.C.A. § § Appellants filed a part: December in relevant misrepresentation alleging and that Filing Contents of 6-907. claims— “willfully, knowingly instructor Chastain attorney agent of inaccu- or —Effect failed, intentionally refused and omit- and presented to and filed racies.—All properly adequately instruct ... ted to and entity shall accu- governmental with a forth with the consent matters set ... and the conduct circum- rately describe knowledge college.” and of the defendant injury brought about stances which damages wages, lost They sought injury or dam- damage, describe the anticipated fringe and increased benefits place injury age, state time earnings, damages general punitive occurred, damage state the names attorney fees and costs. known, involved, persons all and shall claimed, amount of respondents’ mo- contain the court treated trial summary together a statement of actual judg- dismiss as one for Washington,

residence of the claimant at the time of 648 P.2d filing presenting the claim and v. University period immediately pri- of six months Southern California, or to the time the arose. P.2d August letter of demand In presenting the issue of whether a 1984 failed to as notice serve of a claim contract claim existed I.T.C.A., pursuant since it failed to College court, trial appellants before the state the names and addresses of the claim University Zumbrun v. cited Southern ants, claimed amounts of and California, 25 101 Cal.Rptr. injury the nature of claimed. The Zumbrun, (1972). 603 P.2d 454 is, 6-907; therefore, barred. I.C. § court held that the contract between the Uhl, v. Idaho 647 P.2d 730 university and

Huff student been breached where an complete instructor had failed to protest instruction of a course of various noted, however, appel- It should be that university policies. No giv- final exam was argument lants admitted at oral that en, passed and all were given students 21,1984 August letter of was never intend- grades of “B.” Plaintiff contended that ed to notice of constitute a tort claim. given she had not been the educational Rather, appellants that their contend cause background promised upon completion of turn, then, We action lies the course. that issue. In finding no contract claim could be II. THE CONTRACT CLAIM case, made in the the trial instant court by princi- It is that the now well-settled distinguished by here character- pal relationship college a between and its izing professor actions of students is contractual. “nonfeasance,” alleged case as whereas the necessary to examine the relation faulty [I]t instruction Instructor Chastain ship public post-secondary “misfeasance,” between a ed allegation constituted an ucational and a was, institution student. therefore, more akin to an There seems to be almost no dissent tort violation. proposition relationship

from the that the point. misses Such characterization is contractual in nature. Peretti v. State through A breach of occur contract Montana, F.Supp. noncompliance affirmative with the terms (D.Mont.1979) (rev’d grounds, on other “misfeasance”), (i.e. of the as contract well Peretti, (9th Montana 661 F.2d 756 v. (i.e. perform as a failure to at all “non- Cir.1981)). feasance”). goes explain: court in on to then, clear, that a valid It is rarely pre- Since a formal contract could if action in contract exist the terms pared, general nature and terms of implied of the contract between usually implied, with College complied were not specific terms to be found in the universi- instance, with. For certain fundamen ty publications; bulletin and other cus- necessary attaining tals of the course usages specific tom and also can become “entry-level qualification journey as an Peretti, terms implication. presented man” not even in the were F.Supp. at 786. be a breach of im such could also, v. plied Washington See State Ward between “Maintenance University, students in the Mechanic 695 P.2d hand, Marquez (Millwright)” In the University course.1 case at presentation. Such a 1. Such would include ria in a course’s failure fundamentals the number fundamentals, days/hours provide objective required complete pre- which could re- study objective contract between scribed sult in a breach of the course of other crite- however, opinion as to II. neither record nor com- Part Court, 1, specifically rejects the facts in footnote plaint disclose college-student recognizes notion such lants contend the and, accordingly, There is no mention how of Jus- was breached. Chief might concern, have expressed, failed tice’s is un- while well of the contract as found in necessary express rejection the terms in view the catalogue. opinion school bulletin or “ed- in the of the so-called malpractice” cause of ucational action. It is settled in the interest well favor liberal justice, courts The opinion of Chief Justice Donaldson amend, (I.R.C.P. 15(a); grants of leave to “recognize does that there be narrow Markstaller, Markstaller v. 80 Idaho an action for breach circumstances where case, (1958). In the instant lie, an edu- of contract such where appellants did not file for leave to amend accepts a tui- cational institution student’s complaint, complaint asserting their their provides thereafter no educational adequately action con stated cause of Similarly, if the services at all. contract— apply to tract. Failure to for leave amend express the —with fatal, not, however, but this Court is specified school servic- certain possible appel to limit amendments es, designated days or number such Hospital City General complaint. lant’s to hours of and the school fails Grangeville, 69 Idaho P.2d obligation, meet an then action Ac- breach of contract be available.” cordingly, appears the Court unanimous grant Accordingly, appellants we four- circum- least under certain narrow (14) days in which file an amended teen to stances, cause of action for breach complaint, grant limit such an to in- against lie contract will an educational opportunity state a action in to provide educational stitution for failure to contract, provided such exists. opinion as the Court’s services. stated, For the trial court’s reasons out, in the hand points case at “neither ruling appellant’s in tort disclosed the facts complaint record nor provisions applicable barred Ida- college- appellants which contend the ruling is Its ho Tort Claims Act affirmed. is was There student contract breached. did not state a cause of might how have no mention of affirmed, is action contract with the terms of failed to with being granted lants nevertheless fourteen school as found in the bulletin (14) days following in which to remittitur today’s is to- catalog.” Accordingly, complaint attempt file an amended in an to tally inappropriate determine what state a cause of action in contract. Costs whereby be circumstances” “narrow appellants. attorney appeal. No fees on may lie an for breach of To at- against institution. an educational BISTLINE, JJ., BAKES concur. tempt conditions to set out the factual DONALDSON, C.J., part, concurs in dis- be of action in this case would such a cause part. sents join dicta. pure Accordingly, the Court’s BAKES, Justice, concurring specially: very little dif- opinion, noting that there opin- dissenting it regard ference between I have the same concerns with Donaldson, except that malpractice” ion of Justice so-called “educational Chief majority opinion would allow the expressed of action as is Chief file dissenting opinion opportunity tiff an amended in his Justice Donaldson (i.e. student, methodology implicate and other matters would not rubric, regarding viability usually policy raised under the “educational of con- concerns upon subjec- malpractice,” of action does predicated which cause tract claims the more recognize.) relationship tive nuances of teacher-student allege in an effort to a cause of process, our educational as well as the action for breach of contract. formulation governing policies. Hunter, supra, 292 Md. at DONALDSON, Justice, dissenting Chief A.2d at 585. “This we loathe in Part II. courts,” impose on Mary- our noted the Id. land Court. majority’s I dissent analysis and opinion conclusion in Part II of its A unanimous Alaska court noted purports to allow the to assert a that: defendants, cause of action particular remedy we think that the “[i]n college, instructor and the based on money damages inappropriate as a failure to remedy for one who has been a victim of plaintiffs. Whether characterized as during errors made his or her education. contract, being tort or the factual basis The level of might success which have plaintiff’s cause of action is the same been achieved had the mistakes not been manifestly against public policy. and is will, believe, made we necessarily assessment, rendering legal It is clear from a review of case law on imponderable beyond cause an which is uniformly this issue that courts have re ability of courts to deal in a fused, public policy based on considera D.S.W., supra way.” reasoned at 556. tions, to enter the classroom to determine generally claims based what has been Donohue, the New York Court rea- malpractice.” characterized as “educational “[rjecognition soned that in of the courts Adelphi University, Paladino v. 89 A.D.2d this cause of action would constitute bla- 85, (1982); Hunter v. 454 N.Y.S.2d 868 tant interference with the Montgomery County, Board Ed. 292 public system administration of school of of 481, (1982); v. Md. 439 A.2d 582 D.S.W. lodged by constitution and statute in the Dist., Fairbanks Bor. No. Star Sch. 628 Dono- agencies.” administrative school (Alaska 1981); Helm v. hue, supra, 47 N.Y.2d at 445, 418 N.Y.S.2d Profes School, sional Children’s 103 Misc.2d 378, 1354; James v. at N.E.2d at 391 1053, (1980); Loughran 431 N.Y.S.2d 246 Educ., 42 N.Y.2d 357, 367, Board of 397 Flanders, (D.Conn. v. F.Supp. 470 110 934, 942, 1291, N.Y.S.2d 366 N.E.2d 1298 1979); Cty. Smith v. Alameda Soc. Serv. (1977). in noted that it The court Hoffman Agency, 929, Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. 90 153 may was well settled that a court not sub- (1979); v. Board Ed. judgment 712 judgment stitute its or the of a Hoffman of N.Y., 121, City jury, professional judgment 49 N.Y.2d 424 N.Y.S.2d of edu- for the (1979); Donohue v. government actually 400 N.E.2d 317 cators and officials Dist., Copiague Union Free School engaged complex process 47 in the of educat- ing pupils public in the N.Y.2d 418 N.Y.S.2d 391 N.E.2d thousands Hoffman, supra, Peter v. San Francisco schools. 49 N.Y.2d at W. Dist., 125-26, at School 424 N.Y.S.2d at N.E.2d Unified every “Clearly, 320. each and time a stu- academically, it progress dent fails to can Loughran The federal court in stated argued he or she would have done be that a claim for similar to that greater benefit if better and received a plaintiffs present in asserted diagnostic approach or another educational “necessarily hinges upon questions of utilized,” sys- the court tool had been methodology priorities, and educational is- proper forum to test tem is not the by this appropriate sues not for resolution Id. decisions. validity of these educational supra Loughran, court.” at 115. The 127, 424 at 400 N.E.2d at at N.Y.S.2d court Hunter noted that were the 320. claim, they proceed tiffs allowed to on their Paladino, citing would, effect, sim- The court in after position the courts as ov- law on this is- operation propositions ilar from case day-to-day erseerers of both sue, emphasized are that the soundness tions that to be made educators then equally and, error, policy of non-interference though they brought applicable whether the action ought subject integrity not be institution, public private against a Paladino, judicial inquiry.” supra, 89 or in it is tort whether 89-93, A.D.2d at 454 N.Y.S.2d at 872-73. formulated Paladino, supra, 89 A.D.2d at reasoning of the courts cited above 87-91, Similarly, 871-72. 454 N.Y.S.2d at recognizes public is sound and the serious concluded that “The the court Hunter implications extending liability policy difficulty in uncertainty damages, educators and educational institutions for cause, policy determining legal public failing allegedly negligence re precluding factors however, ig- majority, their students. The allegations mains true state public policy impli- nores concerns critical Hunter, contract or tort.” su breach of by the facts of this case. cated Md. n. 439 A.2d at pra, 292 fully recognize nar- there be n. an row circumstances where action for Paladino, the suit was formulated as lie, breach of such as where claim, much as of contract a breach accepts institution a stu- educational present in the case would allow provides dent’s tuition and thereafter no to formulate their claim. Similarly, educational services at all. Yet, emphasized the court in Paladino express implied— contract—whether with a claim formulated in tort: speci- with the school for certain "[wjhere the essence of the services, designated fied such as a number is that the school breached its days or hours of by failing provide an effective edu- obligation, school fails to meet this then an cation, again the court is asked to evalu- action for a of contract breach ate is sim- the course instruction. It Montana, e.g., v. available. See ilarly called review sound- (D.Mont.1979); 464 F.Supp. 784 ness method that has University California, Southern adopted by been an educational institu- nothing is novel tion. There about a These are conditions the be- permit ju- contract action that would the school do not tween student and process dicial intervention into the the adequacy relate to the effect, learning. in still For the claim hence, are of evaluation and requires judicial displacement complex remedy in on contract the courts based educational determinations made case, present in principles. the charged responsibility with the those child____ case, the action as in the Paladino the instruct the plead plaintiffs allowed to is the will be plain- defendants’ failure to educate the judges— “Professional educators—not predicated is tiffs. The asserted breach charged with the upon adequacy of quality the determining learning the method of requires course of instruction. The pursued for their students. to enter the classroom and fact finder are not ob- When the intended results judgments, determine whether not tained, community— it educational profes- styles curricula and resolve judiciary and not the must —that involved were deficient. sional educators For, problem. reality, in the sound- Thus, plaintiff’s require an methodology is al- ness of educational function analysis of the educational itself. ways subject question a court qualifica- quality of education and ought hindsight, not in substitute its no- employed the school tions of teachers tions as to would have been a bet- what courts, not but rather are concerns ter course of instruction to follow for a particular of education pupil. These are determina- for the local state boards governing Paladino, supra, the schools. of Marquez v. University Washington, 89 A.D.2d 454 N.Y.S.2d at 873. actu- ally seems to weaken majority's posi- upon by majority, The case relied present case since it holds that a Peretti, supra, clearly distinguishable university which admitted a student under present it from the case does not program its affirmative action was obli- quality an evaluation of the of edu- involve gated provide adequate tutorial assist- provided by cation an educational institu- ance to the student and could terminate Rather, tion. Peretti an action involved that student’s enrollment when he failed to brought by students who had enrolled grade-point average. maintain minimum unlawfully aviation course which the state complet- terminated after the students had another case cited majority, quarters. three out of six Because Zumbrun, supra, the court found an in- program integrated, was the students structor simply terminating liable for his complete training could not and were protest University policies course to- quarters training three left with plain- ward the war in Southeast Asia. The were of little use the rest of the without aptly tiff’s action was characterized as a training. publication The school on the but, breach of contract claim like the Peret- course formed the measurable boundaries case, nothing quality ti to do with the whereby of an if the of the student’s education. The student they in the aviation tiffs enrolled could maintain her action because the in- given opportunity complete would be complete structor failed to the number of quarters required. the full six days agreed pro- of instructions he had completed Had the vide. instructor any way case deal in did not agreed, allegedly instruction as done a adequacy of the its materi- with the als, poor job poor prepare or used educational tech- or instructors to a student who niques, clearly California case indicates completed quarters qualified the six to be a law simply recog- that the student would not have been able aviation technician. action, though right to maintain a cause of even nized that the students had a she have formulated it terms of quarters full six of the course when supra; quarters. Hoffman, of contract. Pe- enrolled in the first three The breach W, adequacy supra. ter present case does deal with the plaintiffs of the course the took to educate Thus, authority majority provides no inquiry them as mechanics. Judicial into its conclusion that the which it bases very public this case would involve pursue be able to above, policy concerns noted which the Per- on the defend- claim in the courts based did not need to deal etti case with because failure to ant’s implicated by its those concerns were in the course took. This is them holding. unprecedented step dangerous deed a take; Furthermore, step that I cannot Court to all of the other citations support good conscience condone. This state has majority made do not many public avenues to resolve proposition permitting a cause of action established range problems arise our failing a wide a school for edu- society. problem The of whether an plaintiffs, that cause educate the adequate providing an education in tort or in con- cator is of action is formulated through cannot be resolved Washington his students tract. The case of v.Ward way in the same that a system the court University, State pur- manufacturer and a plain- dispute between a simply holds that the product may be re- “military of a defective he was chaser tiff did not establish that ed- legislature has established personnel” pursuant the uni- solved. to statute and agencies governing entitled ucational boards versity bulletin which would have public education in both quality privileges. him to resident-tuition private in this It institutions state.

through those administrative channels pursue their redress allegedly inadequate

for their education at College, through and not system as the would allow

court Therefore, respectfully

in this case. majority’s opinion dissent to the

firmly

Part II.

SHEPARD, J., concurs. COMPANY, HILL a Del BUNKER corporation;

aware and Bunker Limit part Partnership, an Idaho limited

nership, Plaintiffs-Respondents, Idaho, ex

STATE of rel. STATE TAX

COMMISSION, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15789.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Aug. 1986.

Rehearing Aug. Denied

Case Details

Case Name: Wickstrom v. North Idaho College

Court Name: Idaho Supreme Court

Date Published: Aug 25, 1986

Citation: 725 P.2d 155

Docket Number: 16202

Court Abbreviation: Idaho