Rodriguez v. Catholic Health Initiatives, 297 Neb. 1

In Aug. 2013 Mikael Loyd was taken into emergency protective custody, transferred to Lasting Hope (a mental‑health facility), evaluated, and found “not to be a danger to himself or others.”
While at Lasting Hope, Loyd repeatedly called the victim, Melissa Rodriguez; Lasting Hope allegedly knew of an outstanding warrant for Loyd relating to prior violence toward Melissa.
OPD officers attempted to arrest Loyd on Aug. 12, but Lasting Hope refused to release him, asserting the emergency hold remained in effect; Lasting Hope therefore exercised custody/control over Loyd.
On Aug. 14 Loyd left Lasting Hope unobserved, was not reported missing to police or Melissa, and later that day killed Melissa.
Plaintiffs (Melissa’s parents as special administrators) sued Lasting Hope/affiliates and UNMC (the physician who evaluated Loyd) for negligence/wrongful death; the district court dismissed the complaint for failure to plead a duty and denied leave to amend against UNMC.
The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed as to Lasting Hope (custodial duty found plausible) and held denial of leave to amend re: UNMC was erroneous (proposed amendment could state a § 38‑2137/Munstermann claim); remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lasting Hope owed a duty to third parties (Melissa) for harms posed by Loyd	Lasting Hope had custody/control (prevented OPD arrest, kept Loyd under EP custody) -> custodial special relationship gives duty to third parties	No special relation/duty existed to Melissa; dismissal appropriate	Reversed: plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts that Lasting Hope had taken charge of Loyd and thus owed a duty under Restatement (Third) §41 custodial special‑relationship principles
Whether leave to amend to add allegation that Loyd communicated a serious threat to an identifiable victim (to state claim against UNMC/psychiatrist) should have been denied as futile	Proposed sentence would allege Loyd sufficiently communicated a serious threat to an identifiable victim (Melissa); under Munstermann and the mental‑health statutes this can state a duty to warn/protect	Denial was proper because complaint lacked a specific allegation that Loyd threatened Melissa to the evaluating psychiatrist; amendment would be futile	Reversed: district court erred as a matter of law; proposed amendment was not futile and could withstand a § 6‑1112(b)(6) motion, so leave to amend should have been allowed and dismissal of UNMC reversed

Munstermann v. Alegent Health, 271 Neb. 834 (2006) (psychiatrist owes duty to warn/protect only when patient communicates a serious threat of physical violence to an identifiable victim)
A.W. v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001, 280 Neb. 205 (2010) (adopted Restatement (Third) approach that an actor ordinarily has a duty to exercise reasonable care when conduct creates a risk of physical harm)
Ginapp v. City of Bellevue, 282 Neb. 1027 (2012) (discussed custodial special‑relationship principles and duty to control a dangerous third party)
Estermann v. Bose, 296 Neb. 228 (2017) (standard of review for denial of leave to amend; futility reviewed de novo)