Rodriguez v. Catholic Health Initiatives
297 Neb. 1
Neb.2017Background
- Melissa Rodriguez was murdered on Aug. 14, 2013, by Mikael Loyd, who had been placed in emergency protective custody and transferred to Lasting Hope (a mental-health facility) on Aug. 8, 2013.
- While at Lasting Hope Loyd was evaluated by UNMC psychiatrist Jane Doe Physician #1 and found "not to be a danger to himself or others," but remained in the facility until Aug. 14 when he left and later killed Melissa.
- Plaintiffs (Melissa’s parents, as special administrators) sued three defendant groups: Lasting Hope/CHI-related entities and employees ("Lasting Hope defendants"), UNMC and the evaluating physician ("UNMC defendants"), and City of Omaha/officers; all defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
- The district court dismissed all defendants for lack of duty and denied leave to amend as to UNMC; plaintiffs appealed as to Lasting Hope and UNMC (they did not appeal the City dismissal).
- On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court accepted plaintiffs’ well-pleaded facts as true and held (1) Lasting Hope had custody of Loyd such that a custodial special-relationship duty arose, and plaintiffs stated plausible negligence claims against Lasting Hope; and (2) the trial court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend the complaint against UNMC because the proposed amendment was not futile under Rule 12(b)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lasting Hope owed a legal duty to protect Melissa from Loyd | Lasting Hope had custody/control of Loyd (prevented OPD from taking him), creating a custodial special-relationship duty to third parties | No duty existed absent a communicated, specific threat to Melissa | Held: Duty existed under Restatement (Third) §41(b)(2) (custodial relationship); dismissal reversed and remanded |
| Whether plaintiffs alleged breach/causation against Lasting Hope sufficing to survive 12(b)(6) | Alleged failure to supervise/discharge Loyd, failure to notify OPD or warn Melissa, leading to her death | Facts insufficient or only conclusory allegations | Held: Allegations plausibly allege breach and proximate cause; claims survive dismissal |
| Whether UNMC/psychiatrist owed duty to warn/protect Melissa under Nebraska law | Psychiatrist evaluated Loyd under emergency custody; plaintiffs would amend to allege Loyd communicated a serious threat to a reasonably identifiable victim (Melissa) | Statutory and common-law limits require an actual communicated serious threat to give rise to duty; complaint lacked that allegation | Held: Under Munstermann and §38‑2137, duty arises only upon communicated serious threat; proposed amendment alleging such communication would not be futile, so denial of leave to amend was error |
| Whether denial of leave to amend was proper (futility) | Proposed amendment (that Loyd communicated a serious threat to an identifiable victim, Melissa) would allow the claim to survive 12(b)(6) | Amendment would be futile because facts as pled were insufficient | Held: Review de novo as to futility; amendment would not be futile before discovery and thus should have been allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- Munstermann v. Alegent Health, 271 Neb. 834 (applies psychiatrist duty-to-warn standard requiring a communicated serious threat)
- Tryon v. City of North Platte, 295 Neb. 706 (standard for reviewing motions to dismiss)
- A.W. v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001, 280 Neb. 205 (adoption of Restatement (Third) approach to duty)
- Ginapp v. City of Bellevue, 282 Neb. 1027 (special-relationship duty and custodial control analysis)
- Estermann v. Bose, 296 Neb. 228 (standards for denial of leave to amend and review for futility)
- Phillips v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 293 Neb. 123 (duty as legal conclusion applying reasonable care standard)
- Holloway v. State, 293 Neb. 12 (respondeat superior/employer vicarious liability principles)
- Peterson v. Kings Gate Partners, 290 Neb. 658 (adoption of Restatement (Third) §40 special-relationship provisions)
- Martensen v. Rejda Bros., 283 Neb. 279 (special-relationship / employer-employee context)
- Bartunek v. State, 266 Neb. 454 (duty to control third-party conduct under special relationship)