Thomas v. Board of Trustees
296 Neb. 726
| Neb. | 2017Background
- In 2010 Peru State College (PSC) students Tyler Thomas (freshman) and Joshua Keadle (older student) were dorm neighbors; Thomas disappeared on December 3, 2010 and was later declared dead.
- Appellants (Thomas’s parents and estate) sued the Board of Trustees of the Nebraska State Colleges under the State Tort Claims Act for negligence (wrongful death, pain and suffering, parental emotional distress), alleging the Board failed to protect Thomas from Keadle.
- Record showed prior red flags about Keadle: a terminated volunteer coaching role pending background check, prior criminal history checks showing mostly minor offenses, campus conduct complaints alleging inappropriate sexual behavior toward female students (no physical contact found in two complaints), sanctions not completed, and pending nondispositive conduct/court matters.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Board, concluding either (1) no duty to prevent off‑campus acts or (2) the risk of Keadle abducting, raping, and murdering Thomas was not foreseeable; the appellants’ motion was denied.
- Default judgment was later entered against Keadle (liability) and a jury awarded damages on damages trial, but this appeal concerns only grant of summary judgment for the Board.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board owed a legal duty to protect Thomas | Board had responsibility as school to protect students; duty includes preventing foreseeable harm | Board argued duty did not extend to preventing Keadle’s alleged off‑campus violent acts | Court: Board owed duty of reasonable care as a school (reversed district court on this narrow point) |
| Whether Keadle’s alleged abduction, rape, and murder were reasonably foreseeable | Appellants: prior conduct, complaints, background info made violent attack foreseeable; creates fact issue for jury | Board: facts do not show a direct relationship to the extreme violent harm alleged; risk not reasonably foreseeable as a matter of law | Court: Risk of abduction/rape/murder was not reasonably foreseeable as a matter of law; no breach |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Appellants: disputed facts created genuine issue of material fact on foreseeability and breach | Board: produced prima facie showing no foreseeability; burden shifts and appellants failed to produce admissible contradictory evidence | Court: Affirmed grant of summary judgment for Board because no reasonable factfinder could find foreseeability |
| Standard for placing foreseeability questions to jury vs. court | Appellants: foreseeability is usually a fact question for the jury | Board: this is one of the cases where foreseeability can be decided as a matter of law | Court: Although foreseeability is generally factual, here it could be decided as a matter of law in favor of the Board |
Key Cases Cited
- Bixenmann v. Dickinson Land Surveyors, 294 Neb. 407 (summary judgment standards on appeal)
- Cisneros v. Graham, 294 Neb. 83 (summary judgment burdens and inference rules)
- A.W. v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001, 280 Neb. 205 (adoption of Restatement (Third) duty framework and schools’ duty discussion)
- Pittman v. Rivera, 293 Neb. 569 (foreseeability as fact‑specific inquiry; when courts may decide foreseeability as matter of law)
- Hodson v. Taylor, 290 Neb. 348 (foreseeability; limits on leaving foreseeability to jury)
- Ashby v. State, 279 Neb. 509 (elements required under State Tort Claims Act)