Thomas v. Board of Trustees, 296 Neb. 726

In Dec. 2010 Peru State College (PSC) student Tyler Thomas disappeared; plaintiffs allege fellow student Joshua Keadle abducted, raped, and murdered her (body not recovered; death declared by court).
Plaintiffs (Thomas’s parents and estate) sued the Board of Trustees of the Nebraska State Colleges under the State Tort Claims Act for negligence; claims against Keadle were pursued separately (default on liability entered against Keadle later).
Evidence at summary judgment showed Keadle had prior troubling conduct at PSC: disciplinary complaints for inappropriate sexual behavior (no physical contact with Thomas), a theft conviction, a damaged dorm door incident, and a terminated volunteer coaching role after a background check; PSC administrators disputed who received what warnings.
District court excluded irrelevant/hearsay material, found the Board owed a duty of reasonable care but concluded the specific harm (abduction, rape, murder) was not foreseeable as a matter of law, and granted summary judgment for the Board.
Plaintiffs appealed, arguing duty and foreseeability errors; Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding foreseeability of Keadle’s alleged violent acts was lacking as a matter of law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Board owe a legal duty to protect Thomas?	Board had responsibility as college to protect students; duty existed.	If no foreseeability, no actionable breach even if duty assumed.	Court: Board owed duty of reasonable care to students.
Was Keadle’s alleged abduction/rape/murder reasonably foreseeable?	Prior complaints and background information made violent attack foreseeable or at least raised fact question.	Prior incidents did not show a direct relationship to a risk of violent abduction/rape/murder; not reasonably foreseeable.	Court: Not foreseeable as a matter of law; no genuine issue for trial.
Did Board breach its duty by failing to act on Keadle’s prior misconduct?	Failure to remove/discipline Keadle or enforce sanctions breached duty.	Even if conduct was problematic, it did not indicate a risk of the violent crime at issue.	Court: No breach because the specific harm was unforeseeable.
Was summary judgment appropriate?	Plaintiffs: factual disputes exist about notice and risk.	Board: evidence demonstrates absence of foreseeability; entitled to judgment as matter of law.	Court: Affirmed summary judgment for Board.

A.W. v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001, 280 Neb. 205 (2010) (adopts Restatement (Third) duty framework; duty is legal conclusion and foreseeability is element of negligence analysis)
Pittman v. Rivera, 293 Neb. 569 (2016) (foreseeability assessed from defendant’s knowledge at the time; generally a fact question but sometimes resolvable as matter of law)
Hodson v. Taylor, 290 Neb. 348 (2015) (foreseeability is fact-specific; small factual differences can change foreseeability analysis)
Ashby v. State, 279 Neb. 509 (2010) (elements required in tort claims under State Tort Claims Act)