Thomas v. Board of Trustees
296 Neb. 726
| Neb. | 2017Background
- In December 2010, Peru State College (PSC) student Tyler Thomas disappeared; plaintiffs allege PSC student Joshua Keadle abducted, raped, and murdered her (body not recovered; death declared).
- Plaintiffs (Thomas’s parents and estate) sued the Board of Trustees of the Nebraska State Colleges (Board) under the State Tort Claims Act for negligence (wrongful death, pain and suffering, emotional distress); claims against Keadle proceeded separately.
- Prior to Thomas’s disappearance, Keadle lived in the dorm next to Thomas, had been involved in several campus conduct matters (two sexual‑conduct complaints involving other students, sanctions not completed), a dorm damage incident, and had prior criminal history reported to PSC staff.
- PSC administrators received informal reports and ran background checks showing minor offenses and a misdemeanor theft; one PSC employee reported an email referencing an earlier forcible‑fondling/rape charge that was dropped.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Board, concluding the Board did not breach any duty because Keadle’s alleged abduction, rape, and murder were not reasonably foreseeable; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board owed a legal duty to Thomas | Board had duty to protect students; PSC knew warning signs about Keadle | Board argued no duty to prevent off‑campus violent acts and that foreseeability is lacking | Court: Board owed duty of reasonable care to students, but that duty did not extend to conduct that was not foreseeable |
| Whether Keadle’s alleged abduction/rape/murder was reasonably foreseeable | Plaintiffs pointed to Keadle’s prior conduct, complaints, background reports, and uncompleted sanctions as evidence creating a fact issue on foreseeability | Board argued the record did not show a direct relationship between prior conduct and the violent crime alleged; risk of such extreme violence was not foreseeable | Held: As a matter of law the risk of this specific violent attack was not foreseeable; no breach of duty |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Plaintiffs argued factual disputes precluded summary judgment on foreseeability and breach | Board moved for summary judgment showing absence of a necessary element (foreseeability/breach) | Court affirmed summary judgment for Board because no reasonable factfinder could find the violent crime was a foreseeable risk |
Key Cases Cited
- Bixenmann v. Dickinson Land Surveyors, 294 Neb. 407 (discusses summary judgment standard)
- Cisneros v. Graham, 294 Neb. 83 (summary judgment review—view evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Strode v. City of Ashland, 295 Neb. 44 (summary judgment principles)
- Pittman v. Rivera, 293 Neb. 569 (foreseeability and duty analysis)
- A.W. v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001, 280 Neb. 205 (adopted Restatement (Third) duty analysis; schools’ duty)
- Hodson v. Taylor, 290 Neb. 348 (foreseeability can be decided as matter of law when reasonable people could not differ)
- Ashby v. State, 279 Neb. 509 (elements to recover under State Tort Claims Act)
- Doe v. Gunny’s Ltd. Partnership, 256 Neb. 653 (foreseeability need not predict exact consequence)