Thomas v. Board of Trustees, 296 Neb. 726

In Dec. 2010, Peru State College (PSC) student Tyler Thomas disappeared; appellants allege neighbor student Joshua Keadle abducted, raped, and murdered her (body not recovered; death declared by court).
Keadle had prior disciplinary incidents at PSC (two sexual-misconduct code complaints—one resulting in sanctions not completed, one not sustained), a damaged-door incident referred to county authorities, and mixed background-check results including past theft and alleged prior sexual-charge information communicated internally.
PSC administrators received at least one report warning of past allegations against Keadle; some administrators dispute knowledge of the report before Thomas’s disappearance. Keadle was denied a volunteer assistant position after a reference check and background review.
Appellants sued the Board of Trustees under the State Tort Claims Act for negligence (wrongful death, pain & suffering, parental emotional distress); they also sued Keadle (liability later defaulted and damages awarded after trial).
Both parties moved for summary judgment; the district court granted the Board’s motion, dismissing appellants’ claims with prejudice on grounds that Keadle’s alleged violent crimes were not reasonably foreseeable to the Board; appellants appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Board owed duty to student	Board had responsibility to protect students on campus; duty existed under school-student relationship	Board argued no duty or insufficient duty to protect against off-campus violent acts	Court: Board owed duty of reasonable care to students (Nebraska law) but duty alone insufficient without breach/foreseeability
Whether Keadle’s alleged abduction/rape/murder was reasonably foreseeable such that Board breached duty	Appellants: prior complaints, background information, and disciplinary history made violent attack foreseeable; factual dispute for jury	Board: facts did not show a direct relationship to violent attack; no reasonable juror could find such extreme violence foreseeable	Held: as a matter of law risk was not reasonably foreseeable; summary judgment for Board affirmed
Whether summary judgment appropriate	Appellants: disputed facts and admissible evidence create triable issue on foreseeability and breach	Board: produced prima facie showing absence of foreseeability; even taken in plaintiffs’ favor, evidence insufficient	Held: summary judgment proper because no genuine issue of material fact on foreseeability

A.W. v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001, 280 Neb. 205 (2010) (adopts Restatement (Third) duty analysis; schools owe students reasonable care)
Pittman v. Rivera, 293 Neb. 569 (2016) (foreseeability as fact-specific inquiry; direct relationship between circumstances and harm required)
Hodson v. Taylor, 290 Neb. 348 (2015) (courts may decide foreseeability as a matter of law when reasonable people could not differ)
Cisneros v. Graham, 294 Neb. 83 (2016) (summary judgment standards)
Strode v. City of Ashland, 295 Neb. 44 (2016) (summary judgment standards; view evidence for nonmoving party)
Ashby v. State, 279 Neb. 509 (2010) (elements for negligence under State Tort Claims Act)
Doe v. Gunny’s Ltd. Partnership, 256 Neb. 653 (1999) (law does not require precision in foreseeing exact hazard; foreseeability of kinds of consequences suffices)