Rodriguez v. Catholic Health Initiatives, 297 Neb. 1

On Aug. 8, 2013, Mikael Loyd was taken into emergency protective custody after he "expressed a desire to kill" and was transferred to Lasting Hope, a mental health facility affiliated with CHI Health.
Within 36 hours a UNMC psychiatrist (Jane Doe Physician #1) evaluated Loyd and found him "not to be a danger to himself or others." Loyd remained at Lasting Hope through Aug. 14.
While at Lasting Hope, Loyd repeatedly called the victim, Melissa Rodriguez; an OPD arrest warrant for a prior misdemeanor assault on Melissa existed. Lasting Hope allegedly knew of the warrant.
On Aug. 12 OPD officers came to take Loyd on the warrant but Lasting Hope refused to release him, asserting the emergency protective custody hold remained in effect.
On Aug. 14 Loyd left Lasting Hope unattended, Lasting Hope did not notify OPD or Melissa, and later that day Loyd killed Melissa. Loyd was later found incompetent and diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic.
Plaintiffs (Melissa’s parents/special administrators) sued Lasting Hope defendants and UNMC defendants for negligence/wrongful death; the district court dismissed for lack of duty and denied leave to amend as to UNMC; the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lasting Hope owed a duty to third parties (Melissa) based on custodial relationship with Loyd	Lasting Hope took charge of Loyd (refused OPD release, had custody under emergency protective custody), creating a custodial special relationship and affirmative duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent harm to third parties	No special duty to control Loyd; defendants argued no duty absent a specific communicated threat to the victim	Court: Lasting Hope had custody/control under Restatement (Third) §41(b)(2); duty existed and complaint plausibly alleged breach and causation — dismissal reversed and remanded
Whether UNMC psychiatrist/defendants owed duty to warn/protect and whether amendment to plead a communicated threat would be futile	Plaintiffs sought to add allegation that Loyd communicated a serious threat to a reasonably identifiable victim (Melissa), which would trigger statutory/ common-law duty to warn/protect	Defendants argued no allegation that Loyd specifically communicated a threat to Melissa; district court denied amendment as futile	Court: Statutes and Munstermann limit mental-health duty to cases where patient communicated a serious threat to a reasonably identifiable victim; proposed amendment, together with existing allegations, could state such a claim — denial of leave to amend was error; reversal and remand

Munstermann v. Alegent Health, 271 Neb. 834 (2006) (psychiatrist has duty to warn/protect only when patient communicates a serious threat of physical violence to a reasonably identifiable victim)
A.W. v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001, 280 Neb. 205 (2010) (adopting Restatement (Third) approach that an actor ordinarily has a duty to exercise reasonable care when the actor’s conduct creates risk of physical harm)
Ginapp v. City of Bellevue, 282 Neb. 1027 (2012) (custodial relationship analysis and adoption of Restatement (Third) principles concerning duty to control third parties)
Estermann v. Bose, 296 Neb. 228 (2017) (review standard: denial of leave to amend reviewed for abuse of discretion, but futility reviewed de novo)
Tryon v. City of North Platte, 295 Neb. 706 (2017) (12(b)(6) dismissal standard: appellate review de novo)