Thomas v. Board of Trustees, 296 Neb. 726

Background

In Dec. 2010, Peru State College (PSC) student Tyler Thomas disappeared; she was later declared dead. Neighbouring dorm resident Joshua Keadle was alleged to have abducted, raped, and murdered her. Keadle’s body has not been recovered; appellants obtained default liability judgment against Keadle in separate proceedings.
LaTanya Thomas (special administrator) and Kevin Semans sued the Board of Trustees of the Nebraska State Colleges under the State Tort Claims Act for wrongful death, pain and suffering, and emotional distress, alleging the Board was negligent in failing to prevent Keadle’s violent acts.
The record showed prior concerns about Keadle: termination from a volunteer coach position pending background check, prior misdemeanor theft, code-of-conduct complaints for inappropriate sexual behavior (no physical contact involving Thomas), and a dorm damage incident referred to county authorities. Some campus administrators were said to have been informed of an employee email reporting prior serious allegations about Keadle; others denied knowledge.
Both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court excluded irrelevant/hearsay evidence, found the Board owed no duty (because alleged acts occurred off campus) and, alternatively, that any risk of Keadle committing abduction/rape/murder was not foreseeable as a matter of law; it granted the Board’s motion and dismissed the claims with prejudice.
On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court agreed the Board owed a duty of reasonable care to students but held that, viewing admissible evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, no reasonable factfinder could conclude Keadle’s alleged abduction/rape/murder of Thomas was a foreseeable risk; summary judgment for the Board was affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Board owed a legal duty to protect Thomas	Board owed duty as schools generally owe students reasonable care	Board argued no duty or no breach because acts occurred off-campus and were unforeseeable	Court: Board did owe duty, but breach required foreseeability which was absent as a matter of law
Whether Keadle’s alleged abduction/rape/murder was reasonably foreseeable	Prior complaints, background info, and conduct made violent attack foreseeable	Evidence showed misconduct but not a direct relationship to risk of violent abduction/rape/murder; unforeseeable extreme crime	Held: Not reasonably foreseeable; no reasonable factfinder could find foreseeability
Whether factual disputes precluded summary judgment	Appellants: disputed facts (administrators’ knowledge, prior allegations, sanctions) create triable issues	Board: admissible evidence fails to show foreseeability or breach even if viewed favorably to plaintiffs	Held: Even viewing evidence favorably and assuming admissibility, no genuine issue on foreseeability; summary judgment proper
Standard for resolving foreseeability on summary judgment	Foreseeability is factual and often for jury; here facts support triable issue	Foreseeability can be decided as matter of law when reasonable people cannot differ	Held: Foreseeability may be decided as matter of law; here it was unforeseeable as a matter of law, so no breach

Key Cases Cited

Bixenmann v. Dickinson Land Surveyors, 294 Neb. 407 (summary judgment standard)
Cisneros v. Graham, 294 Neb. 83 (summary judgment review and burden shifting)
Strode v. City of Ashland, 295 Neb. 44 (summary judgment principles)
Ashby v. State, 279 Neb. 509 (elements for negligence under State Tort Claims Act)
A.W. v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001, 280 Neb. 205 (duty analysis; foreseeability as element of negligence)
Pittman v. Rivera, 293 Neb. 569 (foreseeability and direct relationship requirement)
Hodson v. Taylor, 290 Neb. 348 (foreseeability can be decided as matter of law in some cases)
Doe v. Gunny’s Ltd. Partnership, 256 Neb. 653 (foreseeability need not predict exact harm)