Thomas v. Board of Trustees, 296 Neb. 726

In 2010, Peru State College (PSC) students Tyler Thomas (freshman) and Joshua Keadle (older, lived next door) were roommates in campus dorms; Thomas disappeared December 3, 2010 and was later declared dead though her body was not recovered.
Appellants (Thomas’s parents and special administrator) sued the Board of Trustees of the Nebraska State Colleges under the State Tort Claims Act, alleging the Board was negligent in failing to prevent Keadle’s alleged abduction, rape, and murder of Thomas.
The Board moved for summary judgment; the district court excluded irrelevant/hearsay evidence and granted the Board’s motion, finding the alleged violent acts were not foreseeable and dismissing the complaint with prejudice.
The appellants obtained default liability judgment and a damages verdict against Keadle (not at issue on this appeal).
On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court agreed the Board owed a duty of reasonable care to students but held, as a matter of law, that the risk of Keadle abducting, raping, and murdering Thomas was not reasonably foreseeable based on the record (disciplinary incidents, prior allegations, and background checks).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Board owed a legal duty to Thomas	Board (as college) had duty to protect students from foreseeable harm	Board argued absence of foreseeability defeats breach element (no duty to prevent off-campus violent acts)	Court: Board owed duty of reasonable care to students, but duty does not alone create liability
Whether Keadle’s alleged violent acts were reasonably foreseeable	Appellants argued prior warnings, code violations, and background information made violent attack foreseeable	Board argued incidents did not indicate risk of abduction/violent murder; risk not foreseeable as matter of law	Court: Risk was not foreseeable as a matter of law; no breach
Whether factual disputes precluded summary judgment	Appellants contended evidence created material fact issue on foreseeability and breach	Board argued it made prima facie case and appellants failed to produce admissible contradictory evidence	Court: Viewing evidence favorably to appellants, no reasonable factfinder could find the specific violent risk foreseeable; summary judgment proper
Whether foreseeability is a question for jury or can be decided as matter of law	Appellants argued foreseeability should go to jury	Board argued foreseeability could be decided as matter of law here	Court: Generally for jury, but where no reasonable disagreement exists, court may decide foreseeability as matter of law; here court did so in favor of Board

A.W. v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001, 280 Neb. 205, 784 N.W.2d 907 (Neb. 2010) (adopted Restatement (Third) duty analysis; duty question is legal/policy-driven)
Pittman v. Rivera, 293 Neb. 569, 879 N.W.2d 12 (Neb. 2016) (foreseeability assessed from defendant’s knowledge; ordinarily a fact question)
Hodson v. Taylor, 290 Neb. 348, 860 N.W.2d 162 (Neb. 2015) (courts may decide foreseeability as matter of law when reasonable people cannot disagree)
Bixenmann v. Dickinson Land Surveyors, 294 Neb. 407, 882 N.W.2d 910 (Neb. 2016) (summary judgment standards reiterated)
Ashby v. State, 279 Neb. 509, 779 N.W.2d 343 (Neb. 2010) (elements required to recover under State Tort Claims Act)