Thomas v. Board of Trustees, 296 Neb. 726

In Dec. 2010 Peru State College (PSC) student Tyler Thomas disappeared; plaintiffs allege roommate/student Joshua Keadle abducted, raped, and murdered her (body never recovered; death declared by court).
Plaintiffs (Thomas’s parents and special administrator) sued PSC’s Board under the Nebraska 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 conduct.
PSC had prior indications of problematic behavior by Keadle: volunteer athletic role terminated pending background check; campus code-of-conduct complaints (two sexual-misconduct allegations without physical contact; one theft/disciplinary matter) and a reported out-of-state arrest history mentioned to a housing/security director.
The Board moved for summary judgment; the district court excluded irrelevant/hearsay evidence, found no duty to prevent off-campus acts (but this Court finds a duty exists), and granted summary judgment because Keadle’s alleged abduction/rape/murder was not a foreseeable risk as a matter of law.
Plaintiffs obtained default judgment on liability against Keadle and a jury award for damages; this appeal challenges only the summary judgment dismissal of claims against the Board.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the Board owe a duty of care to Thomas?	PSC owed a duty to protect its students from foreseeable harm.	Either no duty existed for off-campus acts or duty did not extend to harm alleged.	Court: Board owed a duty of reasonable care to students.
Was the risk of Keadle abducting, raping, and murdering Thomas foreseeable?	Prior disciplinary complaints, background information, and reported criminal history made violent harm foreseeable.	The record shows problematic but nonviolent conduct; nothing tied facts to a risk of abduction/rape/murder.	Held: As a matter of law the specific violent harm was not reasonably foreseeable.
Did the Board breach its duty?	Failure to act on warnings and to remove or more closely supervise Keadle constituted breach.	Even accepting warnings, no breach because the extreme violent outcome was unforeseeable.	Held: No breach—summary judgment for Board because unforeseeability defeats negligence.
Was summary judgment appropriate?	Facts presented created a triable issue of foreseeability and breach.	No genuine issue of material fact on foreseeability; Board entitled to judgment as matter of law.	Held: Summary judgment affirmed for Board.

Bixenmann v. Dickinson Land Surveyors, 294 Neb. 407 (standard for reviewing summary judgment)
Cisneros v. Graham, 294 Neb. 83 (summary judgment burden-shifting and evidence view in favor of nonmovant)
Strode v. City of Ashland, 295 Neb. 44 (summary judgment principles)
Ashby v. State, 279 Neb. 509 (elements required under State Tort Claims Act)
A.W. v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001, 280 Neb. 205 (duty analysis with Restatement (Third) and foreseeability in school context)
Pittman v. Rivera, 293 Neb. 569 (foreseeability and direct-relationship requirement)
Hodson v. Taylor, 290 Neb. 348 (foreseeability as fact-specific; courts may decide as matter of law when no reasonable dispute)
Doe v. Gunny’s Ltd. Partnership, 256 Neb. 653 (foreseeability need not be precise but must be the kind of consequence reasonably foreseeable)