Thomas v. Board of Trustees, 296 Neb. 726

Background

In Dec. 2010, Peru State College (PSC) student Tyler Thomas disappeared; plaintiffs allege neighboring student Joshua Keadle abducted, raped, and murdered her (body not recovered; death declared by court).
Plaintiffs sued the Board of Trustees of the Nebraska State Colleges (the Board) under the State Tort Claims Act for negligence (wrongful death, pain/suffering, parental emotional distress); claims against Keadle were also filed but are not before the court on this appeal.
Prior to Thomas’s disappearance, Keadle had disciplinary incidents at PSC (two sexual misconduct complaints involving other students, one misconduct plea with sanctions not completed, dorm damage incident referred to county) and a history disclosed in informal communications suggesting prior criminal allegations.
PSC administrators had mixed knowledge: some housing/security staff received reports raising concerns about Keadle and recommended removal; other administrators denied learning of those reports before Dec. 3, 2010; background checks showed only minor offenses or misdemeanor theft.
The district court excluded irrelevant/hearsay evidence, granted the Board’s motion for summary judgment (holding the alleged violent acts were not foreseeable), denied plaintiffs’ summary judgment, and later entered default judgment on liability against Keadle (damages determined at trial).
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding as a matter of law that the Board could not reasonably have foreseen the alleged abduction, rape, and murder and therefore did not breach a duty.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the Board owe Thomas a legal duty of care?	PSC owed students a duty to protect them from foreseeable harm.	If no foreseeability, no actionable breach; duty limited by foreseeability.	Court: Board did owe a duty of reasonable care to students.
Were Keadle’s alleged acts reasonably foreseeable such that the Board breached that duty?	Prior misconduct, complaints, and reports about Keadle created a triable issue of foreseeability of violent harm to Thomas.	The record did not show a direct relationship between prior conduct and the specific risk of abduction/rape/murder; risk not reasonably foreseeable.	Court: As a matter of law the violent acts were not reasonably foreseeable; no breach.
Was summary judgment appropriate on foreseeability?	Plaintiffs: factual disputes precluded summary judgment.	Board: evidence insufficient even viewed favorably to plaintiffs; summary judgment warranted.	Court: Summary judgment proper because no reasonable factfinder could find foreseeability.
Could admissible evidence create a material factual dispute on causation/breach?	Plaintiffs: admissible evidence (if considered) would permit inference of risk and breach.	Board: even assuming admissibility, evidence falls short of showing foreseeable risk of this type of violent crime.	Court: Even assuming admissibility and viewing evidence favorably to plaintiffs, no material dispute—foreseeability lacking.

Key Cases Cited

Bixenmann v. Dickinson Land Surveyors, 294 Neb. 407, 882 N.W.2d 910 (summary judgment standard affirmed)
Cisneros v. Graham, 294 Neb. 83, 881 N.W.2d 878 (appellate review of summary judgment; view evidence for nonmovant)
Strode v. City of Ashland, 295 Neb. 44, 886 N.W.2d 293 (summary judgment principles)
Ashby v. State, 279 Neb. 509, 779 N.W.2d 343 (elements required under State Tort Claims Act)
A.W. v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001, 280 Neb. 205, 784 N.W.2d 907 (duty analysis; foreseeability as negligence element)
Pittman v. Rivera, 293 Neb. 569, 879 N.W.2d 12 (foreseeability requires direct relation between circumstances and harm)
Hodson v. Taylor, 290 Neb. 348, 860 N.W.2d 162 (foreseeability as fact-specific inquiry; courts may decide as matter of law in some cases)
Doe v. Gunny’s Ltd. Partnership, 256 Neb. 653, 593 N.W.2d 284 (foreseeability need not predict exact harm but must be kind of consequence reasonably foreseen)