Marcus v. Young, 94-510

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Citation538 N.W.2d 285
Docket NumberNo. 94-510,94-510
Parties103 Ed. Law Rep. 1213 William MARCUS, Appellant, v. Douglas YOUNG and State of Iowa, Appellees.
Decision Date20 September 1995

Page 285

538 N.W.2d 285
103 Ed. Law Rep. 1213
William MARCUS, Appellant,
v.
Douglas YOUNG and State of Iowa, Appellees.
No. 94-510.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
Sept. 20, 1995.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 25, 1995.

Page 287

Davis L. Foster, Iowa City, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Charles S. Lavorato and Christie J. Scase, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellees.

Considered by HARRIS, P.J., and CARTER, SNELL, ANDREASEN, and TERNUS, JJ.

SNELL, Justice.

This case involves the release of plaintiff's student records at the University of Iowa by the legal custodian pursuant to a subpoena. Plaintiff claims he was harmed by the release of his records and asserts an action for damages based on negligence. He claims his negligence action is authorized by statute and administrative rule. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff's alleged cause of action is not recognized in law by statute or rule. The district court granted defendants' motion. We affirm.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

William Marcus, Ph.D., was hired as an expert witness in a products liability case, Carroll v. Litton Systems, Inc., No. B-C-88-253, 1990 WL 312969 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 29, 1990). Marcus was once a medical student at the University of Iowa but was dismissed for poor academic performance. During the course of discovery in the Carroll case, the defendant's attorney subpoenaed Marcus' academic and employment records. University of Iowa officials received a federal subpoena and the university's counsel, Julia Mears, reviewed it and decided the university should comply with it.

Prior to producing the records, Mears telephoned Marcus and informed him of the university's intent to comply with the subpoena and asked him if he wished to receive a copy of the documents. Mears subsequently sent Marcus a copy of the records in question. Douglas M. Young, controller and secretary for the university, acting upon the advice of Mears, produced the subpoenaed records. Marcus was subsequently terminated as an expert witness in the Carroll case and did not collect his expert witness fee.

In June of 1992, Marcus brought a suit against Young and the State of Iowa arguing the release of his academic records constituted a violation of Iowa Code section 22.7 (1991) and Iowa Administrative Code rule 681-17.13(22) (1988). Prior to trial, Young and the State filed three motions for summary judgment. The district court denied all three motions, but the judge who denied the third motion determined neither of the court's two previous rulings had addressed the issue of whether Iowa Code chapter 22 provides a statutory duty which could give rise to a private negligence action and general tort damages. Therefore, on the court's own motion, it set a date for hearing on the issue. Following the hearing, the trial court determined neither chapter 22 nor rule 681-17.13(22) of the Iowa Administrative Code give rise to a private remedy for a violation of those provisions.

Marcus has appealed the district court's ruling. On appeal, Marcus asserts chapter 22 and rule 681-17.13(22) provide a legal duty to maintain the confidentiality of student records, and individuals may bring private suits for breach of this duty because the legislature's goal in enacting chapter 22 was not only to provide for the availability of public records, but also to protect the confidentiality of certain documents. Marcus also asserts chapter 22 and rule 681-17.13(22) give rise to a private cause of action because (1) legislative intent implies the existence of a private remedy; and (2) a private cause of action is consistent with the underlying purposes of the statute.

II. Standard and Scope of Review

When reviewing a trial court grant of a motion for summary judgment, we consider the evidence in the entire record in the light most favorable to the non-movant and determine whether there exists any genuine issue as to any material fact. Ciha v. Irons, 509 N.W.2d 492, 493 (Iowa 1993); West Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. Iowa Iron Works, Inc., 503 N.W.2d 596, 598 (Iowa 1993). We will affirm a trial court's grant of a motion for summary judgment if no issue as to any material fact exists such that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Ciha, 509

Page 288

N.W.2d at 493; West Bend Mut. Ins., 503 N.W.2d at 598; Engstrom v. State, 461 N.W.2d 309, 313 (Iowa 1990). We review the district court's ruling for errors of law. Iowa R.App. P. 4; Ciha, 509 N.W.2d at 493; Keller v. State, 475 N.W.2d 174, 179 (Iowa 1991); Bates v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 467 N.W.2d 255, 257 (Iowa 1991).

III. Existence of Legal Duty or Private Cause of Action

Iowa Code section 22.7, "Confidential Records," provides in pertinent part:

The following public records shall be kept confidential, unless otherwise ordered by a court, by the lawful custodian of the records, or by another person duly authorized to release such information:

1. Personal information in records regarding a student, prospective student, or former student maintained, created, collected or assembled by or for a school corporation or educational institution maintaining such records.

Marcus asserts Young and the State were negligent in releasing his student records. Negligence is a common-law tort which we define as "conduct that 'falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm.' " Seeman v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 322 N.W.2d 35, 37 (Iowa 1982) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 282 (1965)). The elements of a negligence claim include existence of a duty to conform to a standard of conduct to protect others, failure to conform to that standard, proximate cause, and damages. Haafke v. Mitchell, 347 N.W.2d 381, 385 (Iowa 1984) (citing W. Prosser, Handbook of the Law of Torts § 30, at 143 (4th ed. 1971)), overruled on other grounds, Gail v. Clark, 410 N.W.2d 662, 669 (Iowa 1987). Thus, a standard of care or duty is a necessary element of negligence. Seeman, 322 N.W.2d at 37.

In order for a negligence claim to lie for violation of a statutory duty, such provision must be made, either explicitly or implicitly, by the statute. Id. at 37-38. In the absence of such a provision, the violation of a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
83 practice notes
  • Aguilera v. Wright Cnty., No. C 13–3034–MWB.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
    • 6 Enero 2014
    ...of whether Iowa Code § 719.3 might impliedly create a private cause of action for “obstruction of justice,” see, e.g., Marcus v. Young, 538 N.W.2d 285, 288–289 (Iowa 1995); Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 95 S.Ct. 2080, 45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975); see also Wilcox v. Hy–Vee Food Stores, Inc., 458 N.W.2d......
  • Plowman v. Fort Madison Cmty. Hosp., No. 15-0974
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • 2 Junio 2017
    ...as by inclusion, and the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of others not so mentioned.' " (quoting Marcus v. Young , 538 N.W.2d 285, 289 (Iowa 1995) ).) This rule of construction has special force here given that a wrongful-birth cause of action has no footing in traditiona......
  • Grove v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., 4-97-CV-90224.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States State District Court of Southern District of Iowa
    • 16 Marzo 1998
    ...the defendant to perform that duty; and (3) An injury or damage to the plaintiff proximately caused by such failure. See Marcus v. Young, 538 N.W.2d 285, 288 (Iowa 1995); W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 30, at 164-65 (5th A person will be liable for negligent......
  • AT&T Corp. v. Aventure Commc'n Tech., LLC, No. 4:07-cv-00043–JEG
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States State District Court of Southern District of Iowa
    • 19 Septiembre 2016
    ...create a private right of action .... [,] it would have said so clearly." Id. (second alteration in original) (quoting Marcus v. Young , 538 N.W.2d 285, 290 (Iowa 1995) (quoting Unertl v. Bezanson , 414 N.W.2d 321, 326 (Iowa 1987) ). C.f. Unertl , 414 N.W.2d at 326 ("An examination of the c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
85 cases
  • Doe v. Hartz, C98-4084-MWB.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
    • 5 Mayo 1999
    ...671; see also Ries v. Steffensmeier, 570 N.W.2d 111, 114 (Iowa 1997) ("Negligence is the breach of a known duty of care. Marcus v. Young, 538 N.W.2d 285, 288 (Iowa 1995). In the absence of a duty owed, there can be no legal breach."); Fiala v. Rains, 519 N.W.2d 386, 388 (Iowa 1994) (it is "......
  • Tinius v. Carroll County Sheriff Dept., C03-3001-MWB.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
    • 14 Junio 2004
    ...2000); Sanford v. Manternach, 601 N.W.2d 360, 370 (Iowa 1999); Hartig v. Francois, 562 N.W.2d 427, 429 (Iowa 1997); Marcus v. Young, 538 N.W.2d 285, 288 (Iowa 1995); accord Donahue v. Washington County, 641 N.W.2d 848, 850 (Iowa Here, only the second element is at issue — whether the Sherif......
  • Plowman v. Fort Madison Cmty. Hosp.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • 2 Junio 2017
    ...as by inclusion, and the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of others not so mentioned.' " (quoting Marcus v. Young , 538 N.W.2d 285, 289 (Iowa 1995) ).) This rule of construction has special force here given that a wrongful-birth cause of action has no footing in traditiona......
  • King v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • 24 Mayo 2012
    ...intrude into an area over which the federal government or a state administrative agency holds exclusive jurisdiction?Marcus v. Young, 538 N.W.2d 285, 288 (Iowa 1995) (citing Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 78, 95 S.Ct. 2080, 2088, 45 L.Ed.2d 26, 36–37 (1975)). All four factors generally must weig......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT