Thomas v. Board of Trustees
296 Neb. 726
| Neb. | 2017Background
- In 2010, Peru State College (PSC) student Tyler Thomas disappeared; plaintiffs allege neighboring student Joshua Keadle abducted, raped, and murdered her. Thomas has been declared dead; her body was not recovered.
- Plaintiffs (Thomas’s parents and estate) sued the Board of Trustees of the Nebraska State Colleges (the Board) under the State Tort Claims Act for negligence (wrongful death, pain and suffering, and emotional distress).
- The Board moved for summary judgment; plaintiffs also moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the Board’s motion and dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice.
- Relevant facts disclosed conduct and disciplinary incidents by Keadle at PSC (sexual-conduct complaints, code-of-conduct violations, criminal-history references, and a recommendation to remove him from the dorm), but no recorded violent assault on another student before December 3, 2010.
- The district court found any violent acts occurred off campus and that plaintiffs failed to show the Board could reasonably foresee Keadle committing the alleged abduction/rape/murder. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding the alleged violent harm was not foreseeable as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board owed Thomas a legal duty of care | Board owed duty to protect students; plaintiffs argued Board failed to act on warning signs | Board initially argued no duty because alleged acts occurred off campus; Court found duty exists for schools | Court: Board owed a duty of reasonable care to students |
| Whether the Board breached its duty by failing to prevent Keadle’s alleged actions | Plaintiffs: prior complaints, background information, and disciplinary lapses made Keadle’s violent attack foreseeable | Board: evidence did not show risk of abduction/rape/murder was reasonably foreseeable | Court: No breach — risk of the alleged violent crimes was not foreseeable as a matter of law |
| Whether the risk of the alleged abduction/rape/murder was reasonably foreseeable | Plaintiffs: Keadle’s prior sexual misconduct allegations and other incidents put Board on notice of dangerousness | Board: prior incidents indicated problematic but nonviolent behavior; nothing directly related to risk of violent abduction/murder | Court: Foreseeability is fact-specific but here no reasonable factfinder could conclude such violent crime was foreseeable |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Plaintiffs: disputes over facts and admissible evidence created triable issues | Board: produced prima facie showing lack of foreseeability; plaintiffs failed to present admissible contradictory evidence raising a material issue | Court: Affirmed summary judgment for Board because no genuine issue of material fact on foreseeability |
Key Cases Cited
- Bixenmann v. Dickinson Land Surveyors, 294 Neb. 407 (procedural standard for appellate review of summary judgment)
- Cisneros v. Graham, 294 Neb. 83 (summary judgment burden shifting and evidence view)
- Strode v. City of Ashland, 295 Neb. 44 (summary judgment standards)
- A.W. v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001, 280 Neb. 205 (duty analysis and adoption of Restatement (Third) framework for negligence in school context)
- Pittman v. Rivera, 293 Neb. 569 (foreseeability analysis in negligence)
- Hodson v. Taylor, 290 Neb. 348 (foreseeability can be determined as matter of law in some cases)
- Ashby v. State, 279 Neb. 509 (elements of negligence under State Tort Claims Act)
- Doe v. Gunny’s Ltd. Partnership, 256 Neb. 653 (foreseeability and scope of consequences)