Thomas v. Board of Trustees, 296 Neb. 726

Tyler Thomas, a Peru State College (PSC) freshman, went missing Dec. 3, 2010; she was later declared dead though her body was not recovered.
Joshua Keadle, a PSC student living next to Thomas, was alleged to have abducted, raped, and murdered her; plaintiffs obtained default liability judgment against Keadle.
Plaintiffs sued the Board of Trustees of the Nebraska State Colleges under the State Tort Claims Act for negligent failure to protect Thomas.
Prior to Thomas’s disappearance, PSC personnel had various concerns about Keadle: code-of-conduct charges (sexual misconduct allegations without physical contact), failure to complete sanctions, property damage charge, mixed criminal-background checks, and a campus email alleging prior sexual/violent offenses.
The district court granted the Board’s summary judgment motion, finding the Board did not owe a duty for off-campus acts and that plaintiffs failed to show foreseeability of Keadle’s alleged abduction/rape/murder; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Board owed Thomas a legal duty of care	Board had responsibility to protect students on campus	Any duty did not extend to prevent off-campus violent acts	Court: Board did owe a duty of reasonable care to students, but duty alone did not defeat summary judgment
Whether Keadle’s alleged abduction, rape, and murder were reasonably foreseeable	PSC knew of multiple red flags about Keadle, so violent attack was foreseeable	Facts did not show a direct relationship to risk of abduction/rape/murder; risk not reasonably foreseeable	Held: As a matter of law the alleged violent crime was not reasonably foreseeable; no breach
Whether summary judgment for the Board was appropriate	Plaintiffs argued factual disputes existed about foreseeability and breach	Board showed absence of material fact on foreseeability; thus entitled to judgment	Held: Affirmed—no genuine issue of material fact on foreseeable risk; summary judgment proper
Burden on summary judgment regarding admissible evidence	Plaintiffs urged the court consider assorted reports/interviews as raising disputes	Board objected to hearsay/irrelevant exhibits; court excluded inadmissible evidence	Held: Court reviewed admissible evidence in plaintiff’s favor and still found unforeseeability as matter of law

A.W. v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001, 280 Neb. 205 (2010) (adopts Restatement (Third) duty analysis and discusses school duties)
Pittman v. Rivera, 293 Neb. 569 (2016) (foreseeability assessed from defendant’s knowledge at the time)
Hodson v. Taylor, 290 Neb. 348 (2015) (cases where foreseeability may be decided as matter of law)
Cisneros v. Graham, 294 Neb. 83 (2016) (summary judgment standards)
Strode v. City of Ashland, 295 Neb. 44 (2016) (summary judgment and inferences for nonmoving party)
Ashby v. State, 279 Neb. 509 (2010) (elements required under State Tort Claims Act)
Doe v. Gunny’s Ltd. Partnership, 256 Neb. 653 (1999) (foreseeability need not precisely predict exact harm)