Opinion ID: 1758520
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Plaintiff's Claim

Text: As stated, the essence of plaintiff's claim is that, by offering the three-week course that he attended, ALBAT assumed a duty to teach him the fundamentals of pole climbing and that it was negligent in failing to instruct plaintiff regarding how to do so safely. Plaintiff maintains that climbing with a pole strap alone is unsafe and that ALBAT should also have instructed him regarding the use of independent fall arrest equipment. We conclude that plaintiff's claim, properly characterized, is one of educational malpractice. Because plaintiff's claim is legally deficient, it was properly dismissed under MCR 2.116(C)(8) (failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted). Plaintiff would have the courts secondguess ALBAT's decision to teach poleclimbing using the particular methods it chose. However, plaintiff's claim illustrates the inherent difficulty in attempting to define the applicable standard of care in these types of cases. Plaintiff argues that ALBAT was negligent because it failed to instruct him that he should not climb utility poles without using fall arrest equipment. ALBAT, on the other hand, argues that it had no responsibility to do so. [9] We decline to become embroiled in the task of determining whether a trade school such as ALBAT should be held liable in tort for failing to teach specific methods of climbing. It would be practically impossible to determine the precise scope of ALBAT's undertaking. How much was ALBAT required to teach? Moreover, as is typical in educational malpractice cases, any connection between plaintiff's injury and the alleged negligence on the part of ALBAT is remote at best. Even assuming that ALBAT was found to have breached a duty to teach plaintiff every available method of pole climbing, a jury could only speculate about whether such negligence was a proximate cause of plaintiff's fall and resulting injury. Plaintiff's injury was far removed in time and place from ALBAT's three-week course. Indeed, plaintiff was subsequently hired by the Hydaker-Wheatlake Company to perform work on utility poles. Hydaker-Wheatlake, in turn, presumably exercised independent judgment regarding plaintiff's abilities. In any event, ALBAT certainly was not in a position to ensure that plaintiff would make proper use of the instruction he received. Allowing individuals such as plaintiff to assert claims of negligent instruction would avoid the practical reality that, in the end, it is the student who is responsible for his knowledge, including the limits of that knowledge.