Hendricks v. Clemson University
2003 S.C. LEXIS 51, 578 S.E.2d 711, 353 S.C. 449 (2003)
Sections
Rule of Law:
Universities and academic advisors do not owe a legal duty of care, fiduciary duty, or implied contractual obligation to students to ensure they maintain NCAA athletic eligibility, as recognizing such duties would impermissibly create a cause of action for educational malpractice.
Facts:
- R.J. Hendricks, a student-athlete at St. Leo College, transferred to Clemson University for his final year of eligibility to play Division I baseball.
- Clemson pursued a one-time transfer exception for Hendricks, who entered the university with 80 of the 130 credit hours required for his original degree.
- Hendricks met with Clemson academic advisor Barbara Kennedy-Dixon, who advised him to declare a Speech and Communications major and enroll in fifteen credit hours.
- Mid-semester, Kennedy-Dixon realized she had failed to evaluate Hendricks's compliance with the NCAA's 'fifty-percent rule,' which required him to have completed half of his major's requirements.
- Kennedy-Dixon advised Hendricks to change classes to fix the error, but she subsequently realized she had miscalculated his available electives, leaving him non-compliant with NCAA rules.
- Kennedy-Dixon filed a waiver application accepting responsibility for the error, but the NCAA denied the appeal.
- Although Hendricks passed all his fall courses, he was declared ineligible to play baseball at Clemson.
- Hendricks eventually returned to St. Leo College to finish his degree and play his final season there.
Procedural Posture:
- Hendricks filed suit against Clemson University in the trial court for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract.
- The trial court granted Clemson's motion for summary judgment on all causes of action.
- Hendricks appealed the summary judgment to the South Carolina Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed for all claims.
- Clemson petitioned the Supreme Court of South Carolina for review of the Court of Appeals' decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a university or its academic advisor owe a student-athlete a legal duty—sounding in negligence, fiduciary duty, or contract—to ensure the student maintains athletic eligibility through proper academic advising?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Toal
No. The Court declined to recognize a cause of action against the university, holding that neither tort nor contract law imposes a duty on advisors to ensure student eligibility. In addressing the negligence claim, the Court aligned itself with the majority of jurisdictions that reject the tort of 'educational malpractice.' The Court reasoned that imposing a duty of care on advisors is unwise due to the lack of a satisfactory standard of care, the uncertainty of damages, and the potential for a flood of litigation. Regarding the fiduciary duty claim, the Court held that the advisor-student relationship is not comparable to legal or business relationships where special confidence is reposed regarding property or money. Finally, regarding the contract claim, the Court found that while some aspects of the student-university relationship are contractual, there was no specific written promise ensuring eligibility, and courts should not engage in subjective analysis of the quality of academic services.
Analysis:
This decision firmly establishes South Carolina's rejection of 'educational malpractice' claims, whether framed as negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, or breach of contract. By citing California precedent (Brown v. Compton Unified School District), the Court emphasizes public policy over individual equity; even though the advisor admitted her mistake and the student suffered a specific loss (eligibility), the Court prioritized protecting educational institutions from excessive litigation. The ruling clarifies that the 'voluntary undertaking' doctrine in tort law is generally limited to situations involving physical harm, not economic or academic injury. For future litigation, this creates a high bar for students seeking redress for administrative or advising errors, essentially immunizing universities from liability for poor academic guidance unless a specific, tangible promise was made and broken.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Hendricks v. Clemson University (2003)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"