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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
MOSS KRIVIN, F/K/A MOSS
STEINBERG

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

Plaintiff
v.
PETER HINDLE, JOHN DOE ONE,
JOHN DOE TWO, and JOHN DOE
THREE,
Defendants
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 2 of 15

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 Plaintiffs 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

-2-

Case 1:16-cv-10108 Document 1 Filed 01/26/16 Page 3 of 15

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.

-3-

Case 1:16-cv-10108 Document 1 Filed 01/26/16 Page 4 of 15

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 Hindles dormitory
residence on the campus of Deerfield Academy, and the Plaintiff did accompany
Defendant Peter Hindle to Defendant Peter Hindles dormitory residence on the
campus of Deerfield Academy.
14.

While the Plaintiff was in Defendant Peter Hindles 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 Plaintiffs buttocks and genitals
skin-on-skin, Defendant Peter Hindle performing oral sex on the Plaintiff by
inserting the Plaintiffs penis in Defendant Peter Hindles mouth, and Defendant
Peter Hindle penetrating the Plaintiffs anus with Defendant Peter Hindles penis,
all for the purposes of Defendant Peter Hindles 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 Hindles dormitory residence on the
campus of Deerfield Academy, Defendant Peter Hindle told the Plaintiff that what
had occurred in Defendant Peter Hindles 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 Hindles dormitory residence.

-4-

Case 1:16-cv-10108 Document 1 Filed 01/26/16 Page 5 of 15

16.

As a result of Defendant Peter Hindles 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 Hindle
Assault
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.

-5-

Case 1:16-cv-10108 Document 1 Filed 01/26/16 Page 6 of 15

21.

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 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 Hindle
Battery
24.

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

and every allegation heretofore pleaded in this Complaint.

25.

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 Plaintiff.
26.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Peter Hindles unjustified

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

-6-

Case 1:16-cv-10108 Document 1 Filed 01/26/16 Page 7 of 15

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.
27.

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

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

Count III: Plaintiff Moss Krivin v. Defendant Peter Hindle
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
28.

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

and every allegation heretofore pleaded in this Complaint.

29.

By engaging in the explicit sexual behavior and lewd and lascivious

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 Hindles 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

-7-

Case 1:16-cv-10108 Document 1 Filed 01/26/16 Page 8 of 15

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; as well as other damages.
33.

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 Moss Krivin v. Defendant Peter Hindle
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
34.

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

and every allegation heretofore pleaded in this Complaint.

35.

In his capacity as a teacher 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.
36.

Defendant Peter Hindle negligently breached such duty by failing to

exercise the care of a reasonable person in his teaching, direction, counseling, and
supervision of the Plaintiff, in that he violated boundaries concerning appropriate
and inappropriate touchings between an adult teacher and a minor child under his
supervision and in his care by engaging in the conduct described above.
37.

At all relevant times to this action, Defendant Peter Hindle knew or

should have known that violating boundaries concerning appropriate and

-8-

Case 1:16-cv-10108 Document 1 Filed 01/26/16 Page 9 of 15

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 Hindles 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.
40.

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

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 Doe
Two, and John Doe Three
Negligent Hiring, Direction, Retention, and Supervision
41.

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

and every allegation heretofore pleaded in this Complaint.

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.

-9-

Case 1:16-cv-10108 Document 1 Filed 01/26/16 Page 10 of 15

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
Hindles 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.
45.

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

Two, and John Doe Three had a special relationship with Defendant Peter Hindle,
a faculty member or teacher who was employed at Deerfield Academy.
46.

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

Two, and John Doe Three had a special relationship with the Plaintiff, a minor child
who was a Deerfield Academy boarding school student.
47.

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

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

- 10 -

Case 1:16-cv-10108 Document 1 Filed 01/26/16 Page 11 of 15

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

teach, guide, counsel, coach, supervise, or otherwise interact with minor children.
48.

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

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.
49.

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

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 Hindles
employment at Deerfield Academy; by retaining Defendant Peter Hindle in
Defendant Peter Hindles employment at Deerfield Academy; and by their failure
to exercise the care of a reasonable person in their direction and supervision of
Defendant Peter Hindles 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

- 11 -

Case 1:16-cv-10108 Document 1 Filed 01/26/16 Page 12 of 15

hire, retain, direct, and supervise by failing to establish and implement reasonable
safety protocols to protect minor children such as the Plaintiff.
50.

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
Hindles 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 Threes 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.

54.

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

- 12 -

Case 1:16-cv-10108 Document 1 Filed 01/26/16 Page 13 of 15

was providing teaching, guidance, and supervision to minor children who were
students at Deerfield Academy, including the Plaintiff.
55.

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
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 Hindles 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 Hindles 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.

- 13 -

Case 1:16-cv-10108 Document 1 Filed 01/26/16 Page 14 of 15

58.

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

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 Plaintiffs best
interests, including providing safe teaching, guidance, counseling, and supervision
to the Plaintiff.
60.

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

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 Plaintiffs family that Defendant
Peter Hindle posed an unreasonable risk to minor children; and by failing to timely
notify the Plaintiff or the Plaintiffs 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.

- 14 -

Case 1:16-cv-10108 Document 1 Filed 01/26/16 Page 15 of 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.
PLAINTIFFS JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all claims so triable.
Dated: January 26, 2016
By Plaintiffs Attorneys,
/s/ Mitchell Garabedian
Mitchell Garabedian, BBO #184760
garabedianlaw@msn.com
William H. Gordon, BBO #545378
wgordon@garabedianlaw@msn.com
LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL GARABEDIAN
100 State Street, 6th Floor
Boston, MA 02109
Phone: (617) 523-6250
Fax: (617) 523-6250

- 15 -