COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. BRISTOL, $5. SUPERIOR COURT Yoo GH CIVIL ACTION NO. \GHAO) JOHN DOE, ener Biber OLS } v. ) COMPLAINT AND ) JURY TRIAL DEMAND PETER HINDLE and DEFENDANT TWO, ) Defendants ) A. PARTIES 1, Plaintiff John Doe is an individual with a residential address in the State of New York. 2. Defendant Peter Hindle is an individual with a residential address in South Dartmouth, Bristol County, Massachusetts. 3. Defendant Two is an individual the identity of whom is presently unknown to the Plaintiff; therefore, the Plaintiff files the above-captioned action against Defendant. Two by such fictitious name. At all relevant times Defendant Two was or had been a supervisor at Deerfield Academy with a duty to hire, supervise, direct, and retain Defendant Peter Hindle. B. STATEMENT OF FACTS: 4, From approximately 1956 to approximately 2000, Defendant Peter Hindle was a teacher, coach, dormitory master, and faculty member at Deerfield Academy, which during relevant and material times was a boys-only boarding in Deerfield, Franilin County, Massachusetts, operated by the Trustees of Deerfield Academy. Defendant PeterHindle's duties and responsibilities at Deerfield Academy included, among other things, ‘teaching, directing, counseling, and supervising minoz boys who attended Deerfield Academy. 5. From approximately 1984 when the Plaintiff was approximately fourteen years old to approximately 1987 when the Plaintiff was approximately sixteen years old, the Plaintiff was a student at Dee:field Academy. During relevant and material times, Plaintiff was a residential student at Deerfield Academy and lived on the campus of Deerfield Academy in Deerfield Academy housing. 6. In approximately 1988, when the Plaintiff was approximately sixteen years, old, Defendant Peter Hindle engaged in explicit sexual behavior and Jewd and lascivious conduct with the Plaintiff in the Plaintif’s dormitory room at Deerfield Academy, including, among other things, Defendant Peter Hindle rubbing and massaging the Plaintiff's naked baék, skin-on-skii; and Defendant Peter Hindle licking up ard down the Plaintiff's naked back with Defendant Peter Hindle’s tongue 7. Asa 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 ovjective symptomatology, including, but not limited fo, sadness, crying, depression, anxiety, anger, and flashbacks. 8. Atall 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, 9. As a result of the said explicit sexual behavior and lewd and lascivious conduct in which Defendant Peter Hindle engaged with the Plaintiéi, 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 John Doe v. Defendant Peter Hindle Assault 10, The Plaintift repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation heretofore pleaded in this Complaint 11. By engaging in the explicit sexual behavior and lewd and lascivious conduct with the Plaintiff desertbed above, Defendant Peter Hindle acted intentionally so as to cause harmful and offensive contact with the Plaintiff, 12. By engaging in the explicit sexual behavior and lewd and lascivious conduct described above, Defendant Peter Hindle placed the Plaintiff in imminent and reasonable apprehension of said harmful ard offensive contact. 13. 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 cateand treatment; Jong term lost earning capacity: as well as other damages.cE Game: —_—= = 14. By reason of the. foregoing, Defendant Peter Hindle is liable to the Plaintiff for assault, in en amount to be proved at trial, Count Il: Plaintiff John Doe v. Defendant Peter Hindle Battery, 15. The Plaintiff repeats, zealleges, and incorporates by reference herein cach and every allegation heretofore pleaded in this Complaint. 16, By engaging in the explicit sexual behavior and lewd and lascivious 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 Plaintisf, 17. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Peter Hindle’s unjustified harmful and offensive physical contact and touching, 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. 18. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant Peter Hindle is liable to the Plaintiff for battery, in an amount to be proved at trial Count If: Plaintiff John Doe v. Defendant Peter Hindle Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 19. The Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incozporates by reference herein each and every allegation heretofore pleaded in this Complaint.Gin, Game, ems = 20, By engaging in the explicit sexual behavior and lewd and lascivious condisct 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. 21. 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. 22, The mental distress and emotional injuries which the Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer were severe, and of a nature that no zeesonable person could be expected to endure them. 23. Asadirect and proximate result of the conduct of Defendant Peter Hindle in engaging in the explicit sexual behavior and lewd and iascivious conduct described above, 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; es well as other damage: 24, By reason of the foregoing, Defendant Peter Hindle is liable to the Plaintiff for intentional infliction of emotional distress, in an amount-to be proved at trial. Count IV: Plaintiff John Doe v. Defendant Peter Hindle Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 25, The Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference herein each and every alicgation heretofore pleaded in this Complaint,28. In his capacity as a teacher, coach, dormitory master, and faculty member at Deerfield Academy, Defendant Peter Hindle had a duty of care to properly and safely teach, direct, counsel, and supervise minor children who were students at Deerfield Academy, including the Plaintiff 27. Defendant Peter Hindle negligently breached such duty by failing to exercise the care of a reasonable person in his teaching, divection, counseling, and supervision of the Plaintilf, in that he violated boundaries concerning appropriate and inappropziale touching between an adult teacher and a minor child under his supervision. and in his care by engaging in the conduct described above. 28. Atall relevant times to this action, Defendant Peter Hindle knew or should have Inown that violating boundaries concerning appropriate and inapproptiate touching and interaction by engaging in the conduct described above would result in severe mental and emotional suffering by the Plaintiff, 29. A reasonable person in. the Plaintiff's position would have suffered extreme mental distress and emotional injuries under these circumstances, 30, 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; Jong term lost eazning capacity; aa well as other damages31, By reeson of the foregoing, Defendant Peter Hindle is liable fo the Plaintiff for negligent infliction of emotional distress, in an amount to be proved at trial Count V: Plaintiff John Doe v. Defendant Two Negligent Hiring. Direct ni visi 32, The Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation heretofore pleaded in this Complaint. 33. At all relevant and material times, the responsibilities of Defendant Two included the hiring, retention, direction, and supervision of individuals to work at Deerfield Academy, where those individuals would be teaching, directing, counseling, supervising, and otherwise interacting with minor children who were students of Deerfield Academy. 34. At alll relevant and material times, the responsibilities of Defendant Two 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 o: teacher; directing Defendant Peter Hindle as a Deerfield Academy faculty member or teecher, including providing directions for his interactions with minor children; end supervising Defendant Peter Hindle as an employee of Deerfield Academy, including providing supervision for his interactions with minor children. 35, At ell relevant and material times, Defendant Two 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, 36, Atall relevant and material times, Defendant Two had a special relationship with Defendant Peter Hindle, a teacher, coach, dormitory supervisor, and faculty ‘member who was employed at Deerfield Academy. 37. Atal relevant and material times, Defendant Two had a special relationship ‘with the Plaintiff, a minor child who was a Deerfield Academy boarding school student. 38. At all relevant and material times, Defendant Two had a duty of care to properly hire, retain, direct, and supervise individuals of good reputation and character who would be asked to teach, guide, counsel, supervise, and otherwise interact with minor children. 39. Atall relevant and material times, Defendant Two had a duty to establish and implement reasonable safety protocols to protect minor children, such as the Plainti, who attended Deerfield Academy as boarding school students, 40, Atall relevant and material times, Defendant Two 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, supervise, and otherwise interact with minor children, by hiting 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 his direction and supervision of Defendant Peter Hindle’s interactions with minor children who were Deerfield Academy students, -8-including the Plaintiff, as Defendant Two knew or should have known Defendant Peter Hindle was of bad character and reputation and unit to properly interact with minor chik ren 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. Defendant Two further breached their duty of care to properly hire, retain, direct, and supervise by failing to establish and implement reasonable safety protacols to protect minor children such as ‘the Plaintiff 41. At all zelevant and material times, Defendant Two knew or should have keown that Defendant Peter Hindle’s intentional and negligent conduct a8 described above would result in severe menial and emotional suffering by a victim of such conduct, including the Plaintiff 42. Asa direct and proximate result of Defendaint Two'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. 43. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant Two is liable to the Plaintiff for negligent hiting, retention, direction, and supervision, in an amount to be proved at trial,Count VI: Plaintiff John Doe v. Defendant Two Breach of Fiduciary Duty 44, The Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation heretofore pleaded in this Complaint. 45. At all relevant and material times, Defendant Two knew or should have known that Defendant Peter Hindle was providing tesching, guidance, counseling, and supervision to minor children who were students at Deerfield Academy, including the Plaintifé. 46. At all relevant and material times, Defendant Two knew or should have ‘known that Defendant Peter Hindle was spending significant time and interacting with minor children who were students at Deerfield Academy, including the Plaintiff, without other adults present: 47. At ail relevant and material times, Defendant Peter Hindle, as a Deerfield Academy teacher, coach, dormitory supervisor, and faculty member, 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, Defendant Two 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. 48. At all relevant and material times, Defendant Peter Hindle, as a Deerfield Academy teacher, coach, dormitory supervisor, and faculty member, 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, =10-[ea Ge =u GE Atall relevant and material times, Defendant Two knew that because of Defendant Peter Hindle's position at Deerfield Academy, the minor boys attending Deerfield Academy would have confidence chat the conduct Defendant Peter Hindle engaged in was to farther their best interests. 49, Atall relevant and material times, Defendant Two had a fiduciary obligation to the Plaintiff. 50. Asa fiduciary of the Plaintiff, Defendant Two had a duty to represent, protect, and further the Plaintiffs best interests, including providing safe teaching, guidance, counseling, and supervision to the Plaintiff. 51, At all relevant and material times, Defendant Two breached their fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff, by appointing Defendant Peter Hindle to a position which vulnerable minors would xespect 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 filing to establish and implement reasonable safety protocols to protect ‘minorssuch 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 Plaintift’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 chat Defencant Two had information indicating that Defendant Peter Hindle had acted inappropriately with minor children at o about the time the Plaintiff was a student at Deerfield Academy. sij=WRewn, GEES Gua» =. 82, Asa direct and proximate result of the breach of fiduciary duty by Defendant Two, the Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer inthe future: severe and permanent ‘mental distess and emotional injuries, financial expenses for medical and therapeutic care and treatment; lost long-term earning capacity; as well as other damages. 55. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant Two is liable to the Plaintiff in an amount to be proved et trial, WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectflly demancis judgment against each Defendant for each claim the Plaintiff states against each Defendant, in an amount to be determined by a jury, plus costs, interest, attorneys! fees, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and equitable. IURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL CLAIMS. By Plaintiff's Atiomey, [Ait Mitchell Garabedian, BBO #184760 William H. Gordon, BBO #545378 LAW OFFICES Of MITCHELL GARABEDIAN 100 State Street, 6th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Tel.: 617) 523-6250 Fax: (617) 523-9687 garabedianlaw@msn.com 1s