moss krivin v. peter hindle complaint

8/20/2019 Moss Krivin v. Peter Hindle Complaint

1/15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

MOSS KRIVIN, F/K/A MOSS

STEINBERG

Plaintiff

v.

PETER HINDLE, JOHN DOE ONE, JOHN DOE TWO, and JOHN DOETHREE,

Defendants

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:16-cv-10108

January 26, 2016

COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Introduction

1. This case arises out of the sexual abuse in Massachusetts of Plaintiff Moss

Krivin, formerly known as Moss Steinberg, when he was a minor by Defendant

Peter Hindle, a teacher at Deerfield Academy in Deerfield, Massachusetts, who was

negligently supervised by Defendants John Doe One, John Doe Two, and John Doe

Three, the identity of whom are presently unknown to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff

met Defendant Peter Hindle at Deerfield Academy, where the Plaintiff was a

student and Defendant Peter Hindle was a teacher. The sexual abuse of the Plaintiff

by Defendant Peter Hindle occurred on the campus of Deerfield Academy, where

the Plaintiff lived as a residential student of Deerfield Academy and where

Case 1:16-cv-10108 Document 1 Filed 01/26/16 Page 1 of 15


2/15

- 2 -

Defendant Peter Hindle lived and worked as a teacher in residence at Deerfield

Academy.

2. The Plaintiff now seek damages for his personal injuries pursuant to the

common law of Massachusetts.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332

because the Plaintiff is a citizen of California, the Defendant is a citizen of

Massachusetts, and the amount in controversy, without interest and costs, exceeds

the sum or value of $75,000.

4. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) in that

a substantial part of the events giving rise to the Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this

District.

PARTIES

5.

Plaintiff Moss Krivin, f/k/a Moss Steinberg (hereinafter referred to as

“Plaintiff Moss Krivin” or the “Plaintiff”), is an individual with a residential address

in Los Angeles, California.

6. Defendant Peter Hindle is an individual with a residential address is

South Dartmouth, Bristol County, Massachusetts.

7.

Defendants John Doe One, John Doe Two, and John Doe Three are

individuals, the identity of whom are presently unknown to the Plaintiff; therefore,

the Plaintiff files the above-captioned action against Defendants John Doe One, John

Doe Two, and John Doe Three by such fictitious names. At all relevant and material



3/15

- 3 -

times, Defendants John Doe One, John Doe Two, and John Doe Three were or had been

supervisors at Deerfield Academy who had a duty to hire, supervise, direct, and retain

Defendant Peter Hindle.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

8. At all relevant and material times, Deerfield Academy was a boys-only

boarding school located in Deerfield, Franklin County, Massachusetts.

9. From approximately 1956 to approximately 2000, Defendant Peter

Hindle was employed at Deerfield Academy as a mathematics teacher, with

responsibilities that included, among other things, teaching, guiding, supervising,

coaching, or otherwise interacting with minor children who were students at

Deerfield Academy. At all relevant and material times Defendant Peter Hindle lived

on the campus of Deerfield Academy.

10. In approximately the fall of 1979, when the Plaintiff was approximately

fourteen years old, the Plaintiff entered Deerfield Academy as a freshman. The

Plaintiff continued as a full time student at Deerfield Academy from approximately

the 1979-1980 school year through approximately the 1980-1981 school year.

11. The Plaintiff lived on the campus of Deerfield Academy as a residential

student during both years that the Plaintiff attended Deerfield Academy.

12.

Not until recently did the Plaintiff have knowledge or sufficient notice

that he had been harmed and that the harm was caused by the explicit sexual

behavior and lewd and lascivious conduct of Defendant Peter Hindle as explained

below.



4/15

- 4 -

13. On one occasion in approximately 1979, when the Plaintiff was

approximately fourteen years old, Defendant Peter Hindle invited the Plaintiff to

accompany Defendant Peter Hindle to Defendant Peter Hindle’s dormitory

residence on the campus of Deerfield Academy, and the Plaintiff did accompany

Defendant Peter Hindle to Defendant Peter Hindle’s dormitory residence on the

campus of Deerfield Academy.

14. While the Plaintiff was in Defendant Peter Hindle’s dormitory residence

on the campus of Deerfield Academy, Defendant Peter Hindle engaged in explicit

sexual behavior and lewd and lascivious conduct with the Plaintiff including, but

not limited to, Defendant Peter Hindle fondling the Plaintiff’s buttocks and genitals

skin-on-skin, Defendant Peter Hindle performing oral sex on the Plaintiff by

inserting the Plaintiff’s penis in Defendant Peter Hindle’s mouth, and Defendant

Peter Hindle penetrating the Plaintiff’s anus with Defendant Peter Hindle’s penis,

all for the purposes of Defendant Peter Hindle’s sexual gratification.

15. After Defendant Peter Hindle engaged in the explicit sexual behavior

and lewd and lascivious conduct with the Plaintiff as described above, and while

the Plaintiff was still in Defendant Peter Hindle’s dormitory residence on the

campus of Deerfield Academy, Defendant Peter Hindle told the Plaintiff that what

had occurred in Defendant Peter Hindle’s dormitory residence was to be kept secret

by the Plaintiff and that the Plaintiff must not tell anyone about what had occurred

in Defendant Peter Hindle’s dormitory residence.



5/15

- 5 -

16. As a result of Defendant Peter Hindle’s explicit sexual behavior and lewd

and lascivious conduct with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff suffers, has suffered, and will

continue to suffer in the future severe emotional distress and physical harm

manifested by objective symptomatology, including, but not limited to, suicidal

ideation, depression, sadness, anger, anxiety, sleep problems, and panic attacks.

17. At all relevant and material times, Defendant Peter Hindle

misrepresented and concealed from the Plaintiff the wrongful nature of the explicit

sexual behavior and lewd and lascivious conduct of Defendant Peter Hindle and

that such explicit sexual behavior and lewd and lascivious conduct could harm the

Plaintiff.

18. As a result of the said explicit sexual behavior and lewd and lascivious

conduct in which Defendant Peter Hindle engaged with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is

unable at this time to fully disclose in complete detail to what degree Defendant

Peter Hindle did abuse the Plaintiff emotionally and physically.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Count I: Plaintiff Moss Krivin v. Defendant Peter HindleAssault

19. The Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference herein each

and every allegation heretofore pleaded in this Complaint.

20. By engaging in the explicit sexual behavior and lewd and lascivious

conduct with the Plaintiff described above, Defendant Peter Hindle acted

intentionally so as to cause harmful and offensive contact with the Plaintiff.



6/15

- 6 -


conduct described above, Defendant Peter Hindle placed the Plaintiff in imminent

and reasonable apprehension of said harmful and offensive contact.

22. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Peter Hindle placing the

Plaintiff in imminent and reasonable apprehension of harmful and offensive

contact, the Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer in the future: severe and

permanent mental distress and emotional injuries as outlined above; financial

expenses for medical and therapeutic care and treatment; long term lost earning

capacity; as well as other damages.

23. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant Peter Hindle is liable to the

Plaintiff for assault, in an amount to be proved at trial.

Count II: Plaintiff Moss Krivin v. Defendant Peter HindleBattery




conduct described above, Defendant Peter Hindle acted intentionally so as to cause

unjustified harmful and offensive physical contact and touching of the Plaintiff, and

repeatedly performed such unjustified harmful and offensive physical contact and

touching of the Plaintiff.

26. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Peter Hindle’s unjustified

harmful and offensive physical contact and touching, the Plaintiff suffered and will



7/15

- 7 -

continue to suffer in the future: severe and permanent mental distress and

emotional injuries as outlined above; financial expenses for medical and therapeutic

care and treatment; long term lost earning capacity; as well as other damages.


Plaintiff for battery, in an amount to be proved at trial.

Count III: Plaintiff Moss Krivin v. Defendant Peter HindleIntentional Infliction of Emotional Distress




conduct described above, Defendant Peter Hindle intended to inflict emotional

distress upon the Plaintiff, or Defendant Peter Hindle knew or should have known

that emotional distress was the likely result of Defendant Peter Hindle’s conduct.

30. The conduct of Defendant Peter Hindle in engaging in the explicit sexual

behavior and lewd and lascivious conduct described above is extreme and

outrageous, beyond all possible bounds of decency, and utterly intolerable in a

civilized community.

31. The mental distress and emotional injuries which the Plaintiff suffered

and will continue to suffer were severe, and of a nature that no reasonable person

could be expected to endure them.

32. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendant Peter

Hindle in engaging in the explicit sexual behavior and lewd and lascivious conduct



8/15


9/15

- 9 -

inappropriate touchings and interactions by engaging in the conduct described

above would result in severe mental and emotional suffering by the Plaintiff.

38. A reasonable person in the Plaintiff's position would have suffered

extreme mental distress and emotional injuries under these circumstances.

39. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Peter Hindle’s negligent

conduct, the Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer in the future: severe and

permanent mental distress and emotional injuries, including objective

corroboration of said mental distress and emotional injuries as outlined above;

financial expenses for medical and therapeutic care and treatment; long term lost

earning capacity; as well as other damages.


Plaintiff for negligent infliction of emotional distress, in an amount to be proved at

trial.

Count V: Plaintiff Moss Krivin v. Defendants John Doe One, John DoeTwo, and John Doe Three

Negligent Hiring, Direction, Retention, and Supervision



42. At all relevant and material times, the responsibilities of Defendants John

Doe One, John Doe Two, and John Doe Three included the hiring, retention,

direction, and supervision of individuals to work at Deerfield Academy, where

those individuals would be training, guiding, counseling, coaching, supervising,

and otherwise interacting with minor children.



10/15

- 10 -

43. At all relevant and material times, the responsibilities of Defendants John

Doe One, John Doe Two, and John Doe Three included hiring Defendant Peter

Hindle as a faculty member at Deerfield Academy, or approving Defendant Peter

Hindle’s employment as a Deerfield Academy teacher; retaining Defendant Peter

Hindle as a Deerfield Academy faculty member or teacher; directing Defendant

Peter Hindle as a Deerfield Academy faculty member or teacher, including

providing directions for his interactions with minor children; and supervising

Defendant Peter Hindle as an employee of Deerfield Academy, including providing

supervision for his interactions with minor children.

44. At all relevant and material times, Defendants John Doe One, John Doe

Two, and John Doe Three knew or should have known that Defendant Peter Hindle

would interact and was interacting with minor children who were Deerfield

Academy students, including, more specifically, the Plaintiff.


Two, and John Doe Three had a special relationship with Defendant Peter Hindle,

a faculty member or teacher who was employed at Deerfield Academy.


Two, and John Doe Three had a special relationship with the Plaintiff, a minor child

who was a Deerfield Academy boarding school student.


Two, and John Doe Three had a duty of care to properly hire, retain, direct, and



11/15

- 11 -

supervise individuals of good reputation and character who would be asked to

teach, guide, counsel, coach, supervise, or otherwise interact with minor children.


Two, and John Doe Three had a duty to establish and implement reasonable safety

protocols to protect minor children, such as the Plaintiff, who attended Deerfield

Academy as boarding school students.


Two, and John Doe Three breached their duty of care to properly hire, retain, direct,

and supervise individuals of good reputation and character who would be asked to

teach, guide, counsel, coach, supervise, and otherwise interact with minor children,

by hiring Defendant Peter Hindle or approving Defendant Peter Hindle’s

employment at Deerfield Academy; by retaining Defendant Peter Hindle in

Defendant Peter Hindle’s employment at Deerfield Academy; and by their failure

to exercise the care of a reasonable person in their direction and supervision of

Defendant Peter Hindle’s interactions with minor children who were Deerfield

Academy students, including the Plaintiff, as Defendants John Doe One, John Doe

Two, and John Doe Three knew or should have known Defendant Peter Hindle was

of bad character and reputation and unfit to properly interact with minor children

who were Deerfield Academy students, including, more specifically, the Plaintiff,

and that Defendant Peter Hindle engaged in or was engaging in the intentional and

negligent conduct with the Plaintiff as described above. Defendants John Doe One,

John Doe Two, and John Doe Three further breached their duty of care to properly



12/15

- 12 -

hire, retain, direct, and supervise by failing to establish and implement reasonable

safety protocols to protect minor children such as the Plaintiff.


Two, and John Doe Three knew or should have known that Defendant Peter

Hindle’s intentional and negligent conduct as described above would result in

severe mental and emotional suffering by a victim of such conduct, including the

Plaintiff.

51. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants John Doe One, John Doe

Two, and John Doe Three’s negligent conduct, the Plaintiff has suffered and will

continue to suffer in the future: severe and permanent mental distress and

emotional injuries, including objective corroboration of said mental distress and

emotional injuries as outlined above; financial expenses for medical and therapeutic

care and treatment; long term lost earning capacity; as well as other damages.

52. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants John Doe One, John Doe Two,

and John Doe Three are liable to the Plaintiff for negligent hiring, retention,

direction, and supervision, in an amount to be proved at trial.

Count VI: Plaintiff Moss Krivin v. Defendants John Doe One, John Doe Two,and John Doe Three

Breach of Fiduciary Duty

53.

Plaintiff Moss Krivin repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference

herein each and every allegation heretofore pleaded in this Complaint.





13/15

- 13 -

was providing teaching, guidance, and supervision to minor children who were

students at Deerfield Academy, including the Plaintiff.



was spending significant time with and interacting with minor children who were

students at Deerfield Academy, including the Plaintiff, without other adults

present.

56. At all relevant and material times, Defendant Peter Hindle, as a Deerfield

Academy teacher, was in a position that the minor children who were students at

Deerfield Academy would believe that they could trust Peter Hindle. At all relevant

and material times, Defendants John Doe One, John Doe Two, and John Doe Three

knew that because of Defendant Peter Hindle’s position at Deerfield Academy, the

minor boys attending Deerfield Academy would believe they could trust Defendant

Peter Hindle.

57. At all relevant and material times, Defendant Peter Hindle, as a Deerfield

Academy teacher, was in a position that the minor children who were students at

Deerfield Academy would have confidence that the conduct Defendant Peter

Hindle engaged in was to further their best interests. At all relevant and material

times, Defendants John Doe One, John Doe Two, and John Doe Three knew that

because of Defendant Peter Hindle’s position at Deerfield Academy, the minor boys

attending Deerfield Academy would have confidence that the conduct Defendant

Peter Hindle engaged in was to further their best interests.



14/15

- 14 -


Two, and John Doe Three had a fiduciary obligation to the Plaintiff.

59. As fiduciaries of the Plaintiff, Defendants John Doe One, John Doe Two,

and John Doe Three had a duty to represent, protect, and further the Plaintiff’s best

interests, including providing safe teaching, guidance, counseling, and supervision

to the Plaintiff.


Two, and John Doe Three breached their fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff, by

appointing Defendant Peter Hindle to a position which vulnerable minors would

respect and would cause vulnerable minors to believe they could trust Defendant

Peter Hindle; by allowing Defendant Peter Hindle to have opportunities for

engaging in explicit sexual behavior and lewd and lascivious conduct with minors;

by failing to establish and implement reasonable safety protocols to protect minors

such as the Plaintiff; by allowing Defendant Peter Hindle to engage in the explicit

sexual behavior and lewd and lascivious conduct with the Plaintiff as described

above; by failing to timely warn the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s family that Defendant

Peter Hindle posed an unreasonable risk to minor children; and by failing to timely

notify the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s family that Defendants John Doe One, John Doe

Two, and John Doe Three had information indicating that Defendant Peter Hindle

had acted inappropriately with minor children at or about the time the Plaintiff was

a student at Deerfield Academy.



15/15

- 15 -

61. As a direct and proximate result of the breach of fiduciary duty by

Defendants John Doe One, John Doe Two, and John Doe Three, the Plaintiff suffered

and will continue to suffer in the future: severe and permanent mental distress and

emotional injuries, financial expenses for medical and therapeutic care and

treatment; lost long-term earning capacity; as well as other damages.

62. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants John Doe One, John Doe Two,

and John Doe Three are liable to the Plaintiff in an amount to be proved at trial.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE Plaintiff Moss Krivin respectfully demands judgment of

$10,000,000.00 in damages against each Defendant for each claim Plaintiff Moss

Krivin states against each Defendant, plus costs, interest, attorneys' fees, and such

other and further relief as this Court deems just and equitable.

PLAINTIFF’S JURY TRIAL DEMAND

The Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all claims so triable.

Dated: January 26, 2016

By Plaintiff’s Attorneys,

/s/ Mitchell GarabedianMitchell Garabedian, BBO #[email protected]

William H. Gordon, BBO #545378wgordon@[email protected] LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL GARABEDIAN 100 State Street, 6th FloorBoston, MA 02109Phone: (617) 523-6250Fax: (617) 523-6250

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:wgordon@[email protected]:wgordon@[email protected]:wgordon@[email protected]:[email protected]

moss krivin v. peter hindle complaint

Documents