## Facts

- Kevin Ross, a high school basketball player with significant academic deficiencies, accepted an athletic scholarship to attend Creighton University and play varsity basketball.
- Ross alleged Creighton knew of his limited academic preparation yet recruited him and promised sufficient tutoring so he would receive a meaningful education.
- Ross attended Creighton from 1978–1982, maintained roughly a “D” average, and earned 96 of 128 credits required for graduation; some courses he took did not count toward a degree.
- Ross alleged the athletic department steered him into such courses and used staff assistance for his coursework rather than providing adequate academic instruction and tutoring.
- After his athletic eligibility ended, Ross alleged he had severely limited reading and language skills and required substantial remedial education.
- Ross sued for negligence (including educational malpractice, negligent admission, and negligent infliction of emotional distress) and for breach of contract based on alleged specific promises of tutoring and related academic support.
- The district court dismissed the entire complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, and Ross appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Illinois law recognizes negligence claims effectively alleging “educational malpractice” based on the quality or adequacy of a university education.
2. Whether Illinois law recognizes a tort claim for “negligent admission” of an academically unprepared student.
3. Whether the pleaded facts stated a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress under Illinois law.
4. Whether a student may proceed on a breach-of-contract theory when alleging specific, identifiable promises of academic services (as distinct from a general promise of a good education).

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of all negligence-based claims, including educational malpractice, negligent admission, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed dismissal of the breach-of-contract claim to the extent it alleged specific, identifiable promises of academic services that could be adjudicated without evaluating educational quality.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings limited to the narrow contract theory.

## Legal Principles

- Illinois law does not recognize a tort claim for educational malpractice requiring courts to assess pedagogical methods, academic judgments, or the overall adequacy of instruction.
- Policy concerns supporting rejection of educational-malpractice claims include the absence of a workable standard of care, difficulty proving causation, and the risk of courts supervising academic operations.
- Illinois law does not recognize “negligent admission” as a tort theory where liability would turn on admissions judgments and a student’s later academic failure.
- Negligent infliction of emotional distress is not established by allegations that are derivative of noncognizable educational-malpractice theories and that do not fit within recognized Illinois limitations on such claims.
- The relationship between a student and a private university is generally contractual in nature.
- A contract claim may proceed when the plaintiff alleges breach of specific, discrete promises to provide particular services (e.g., promised tutoring), and resolution can focus on nonperformance of the promised services rather than measuring educational adequacy.

## Conclusion

The court barred negligence theories that would force judicial evaluation of academic quality or admissions decisions, but it permitted a limited breach-of-contract claim based on alleged specific promises of tutoring and related academic support that could be litigated as a question of performance rather than educational adequacy.


Ross v. Creighton Univ., 957 F.2d 410 (7th Cir. 1992)