Rodriguez v. Catholic Health Initiatives, 297 Neb. 1

On August 8, 2013, Mikael Loyd was taken into emergency protective custody after telling police he "expressed a desire to kill" and was transferred to Lasting Hope, a mental health facility.
Within 36 hours a UNMC psychiatrist (Jane Doe Physician #1) evaluated Loyd and found him not dangerous; Loyd remained at Lasting Hope through August 14.
While at Lasting Hope, Loyd repeatedly called the victim, Melissa Rodriguez; on August 12 police attempted to arrest Loyd on an outstanding warrant but Lasting Hope would not release him to officers.
On August 14 Loyd left Lasting Hope unobserved and later that day killed Melissa; he returned to Lasting Hope and was arrested on August 16.
Melissa’s parents sued Lasting Hope affiliates (including CHI entities and Noll entities) and UNMC (and others) for negligence/wrongful death; the district court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of duty and denied leave to amend as to UNMC; plaintiffs appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lasting Hope defendants owed a duty to third parties (Melissa) based on custody of Loyd	Lasting Hope had taken charge of Loyd under emergency protective custody and prevented police from taking him, creating a custodial special relationship and duty to exercise reasonable care	No special relationship/duty to third parties; custody did not give rise to a duty to Melissa under the facts alleged	Reversed: Allegations that Lasting Hope had custody/control of Loyd (preventing police arrest, failing to monitor/release) stated a custodial special-relationship duty and survived dismissal
Whether denial of leave to amend to add allegation that Loyd communicated a serious threat to an identifiable victim (Melissa) was proper as to UNMC defendants	Proposed amendment (that Loyd communicated a serious threat to a reasonably identifiable victim, i.e., Melissa) cures pleading deficiency and, coupled with existing facts, makes out a duty under Munstermann/statutory framework	Amendment would be futile because complaint lacked an allegation that Loyd communicated a threat specifically identifying Melissa	Reversed: Under Nebraska notice-pleading and relevant statutes/case law, the proposed amendment was not futile; leave to amend should have been allowed and dismissal of UNMC reversed

Munstermann v. Alegent Health, 271 Neb. 834 (duty to warn by psychiatrists arises only when patient communicated a serious threat to an identifiable victim)
A.W. v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001, 280 Neb. 205 (adopted Restatement (Third) § 7 approach to duty; duty exists where actor's conduct creates risk)
Ginapp v. City of Bellevue, 282 Neb. 1027 (discussed custodial special-relationship duty and adoption of Restatement (Third) §§ 40–41 principles)
Tryon v. City of North Platte, 295 Neb. 706 (standard of review for dismissal; facts in complaint accepted as true)
Estermann v. Bose, 296 Neb. 228 (review standard for denial of leave to amend and futility analyzed de novo)