Rodriguez v. Catholic Health Initiatives, 297 Neb. 1

In August 2013 Mikael Loyd was held under emergency protective custody and transferred to Lasting Hope (a mental health facility); UNMC physician evaluated him and found him not dangerous.
While at Lasting Hope Loyd repeatedly called his ex, Melissa Rodriguez; Lasting Hope refused OPD officers access on Aug 12 citing the protective hold.
On Aug 14 Loyd left Lasting Hope unsupervised, was not reported missing to police or Melissa, and later that day killed Melissa; Loyd was later found incompetent and diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic.
Melissa’s parents (special administrators) sued: negligence/wrongful death claims against Lasting Hope defendants (including CHI affiliates and contracted staff), UNMC (physician), and City defendants; district court granted motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim and denied leave to amend as to UNMC.
On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court accepted the pleaded facts as true and reviewed dismissal de novo and denial of leave to amend for futility de novo.
The Court reversed dismissal as to Lasting Hope (custodial duty found) and reversed denial of leave to amend as to UNMC (statutory/psychiatrist duty to warn could be sufficiently alleged); remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lasting Hope owed a duty to Melissa to control Loyd and warn/protect third parties	Lasting Hope had custody/control of Loyd (refused OPD custody; kept him under protective hold) creating a custodial special-relationship duty to third parties	No special relationship/duty to third parties existed under the pleaded facts	Reversed: custodial special-relationship exists where facility took charge; duty pled and breach plausibly alleged
Whether UNMC (psychiatrist) owed a duty to warn/protect Melissa and whether proposed amendment alleging a communicated serious threat would be futile	Allegations and proposed amendment show Loyd communicated threats and Melissa was a reasonably identifiable victim, satisfying statutory/Munstermann duty-to-warn standard	Absent an allegation that Loyd specifically threatened Melissa, no duty to warn existed; amendment would be futile	Reversed: proposed amendment not futile; under Nebraska statutory framework/Munstermann a psychiatrist can owe duty if patient communicated a serious threat to a reasonably identifiable victim

Munstermann v. Alegent Health, 271 Neb. 834 (2006) (psychiatrist duty-to-warn arises only when patient communicates serious threat to a reasonably identifiable victim)
Tryon v. City of North Platte, 295 Neb. 706 (2017) (motion to dismiss reviewed de novo; pleading standards described)
A.W. v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001, 280 Neb. 205 (2010) (adopted Restatement (Third) § 7 duty framework)
Ginapp v. City of Bellevue, 282 Neb. 1027 (2012) (discussed custodial special-relationship and duty to control third parties)
Peterson v. Kings Gate Partners, 290 Neb. 658 (2015) (adopted certain Restatement (Third) special-relationship provisions)
Martensen v. Rejda Bros., 283 Neb. 279 (2012) (employer-employee special-relationship under Restatement (Third))
Holloway v. State, 293 Neb. 12 (2016) (respondeat superior/employer liability principles)
Pittman v. Rivera, 293 Neb. 569 (2016) (elements of negligence and duty as question of law)
Estermann v. Bose, 296 Neb. 228 (2017) (standard for appellate review of denial of leave to amend; futility reviewed de novo)