Gilmore v. Com.
| Decision Date | 06 May 1994 |
| Citation | 417 Mass. 718,632 N.E.2d 838 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 45 A.L.R.5th 829 Joseph P. GILMORE, administrator, 1 & others 2 v. COMMONWEALTH & another. 3 |
Richard W. Rose, Boston, for County of Middlesex.
Michelle A. Kaczynski, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kristen Wigandt, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., with her, for the Com.
Donald J. Correa, Plymouth, for James P. Gilmore.
Before LIACOS, C.J., and ABRAMS, NOLAN, O'CONNOR and GREANEY, JJ.
A judge in the Superior Court reported to the Appeals Court, see Mass.R.Civ.P. 64, 365 Mass. 831 (1974); G.L. c. 231, § 111, second par. (1992 ed.), the correctness of his order denying motions for summary judgment filed by the defendants, the Commonwealth and the county of Middlesex, in connection with the action by the plaintiff James P. Gilmore to recover for alleged negligent infliction of emotional distress suffered as the result of the murder of his sister, Patricia E. Gilmore. The defendants sought summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff's letter of presentment under G.L. c. 258, § 4 (1992 ed.), was inadequate to advise them of his claim. We transferred the case to this court on our own motion and now conclude that the plaintiff's presentment letter was sufficient.
The background of the case is as follows. Patricia E. Gilmore, the plaintiff's sister, had filed numerous complaints with various police departments, and in the District Court against Bradford Prendergast, after he had threatened and assaulted her. On July 2, 1979, Prendergast was charged with threatening Patricia's life, and he was subsequently committed to the Bridgewater State Hospital for observation. Prendergast admitted to facts sufficient to warrant a finding of guilty and on September 28, 1979, was sentenced in a District Court to serve six months in the Billerica house of correction. Despite Prendergast's prior conduct against Patricia, psychiatrists failed to commit him to the Bridgewater State Hospital. On December 20, 1979, while on furlough from the house of correction, Prendergast entered the Gilmores' home in Canton, assaulted Patricia and members of the family, and kidnapped Patricia at gunpoint. Shortly thereafter, Patricia's body, which had been stabbed a number of times with a hunting knife, was found alongside a road in Middleborough.
Pursuant to G.L. c. 258, § 4, Joan Gilmore, Patricia's sister, commenced an action in the Superior Court on December 17, 1982, against the Commonwealth and the county of Middlesex, seeking to recover damages based on the alleged negligent conduct of public officials in granting to Prendergast the furlough during which he murdered Patricia. This action was later consolidated with an action filed by Joseph P. Gilmore, Patricia's brother, as administrator of Patricia's estate, and by her other siblings. 4 Subsequently, the plaintiff with whom we are concerned, James P. Gilmore, filed a motion, which was allowed, to be joined in the consolidated actions in order to bring a claim against the Commonwealth and Middlesex County for the alleged negligent infliction of emotional distress as a result of his sister's murder. 5
The presentment issue concerns "notice of claim" letters sent on December 18, 1981, by James' attorney to the Middlesex county commissioners, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of the Executive Office of Human Services. The text of the identical letters reads as follows:
There was included with each presentment letter a copy of the nineteen-page amended complaint, referenced in the letter, which had been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by the representative of Patricia's estate against various county and State officials and public entities.
In denying the defendants' motions for summary judgment, the judge noted that the question of the adequacy of James' presentment was a "close one," but that the letters, and the specified portions of the complaint in the Federal lawsuit, sufficiently presented James' claim within the requirements and purposes of G.L. c. 258, § 4, because the letters allowed appropriate public officials of the Commonwealth and the county to ascertain the nature of the claim, and thereafter to investigate, to take appropriate action, and to satisfy themselves that the claim was not one based on intentional conduct which would fall outside of G.L. c. 258.
General Laws c. 258, § 4, provides, in pertinent part, that "[a] civil action shall not be instituted against a public employer on a claim for damages under this chapter unless the claimant shall have first presented his claim in writing to the executive officer of such public employer within two years after the date upon which the cause of action arose...." Presentment must be made "in strict compliance with the statute." Weaver v. Commonwealth, 387 Mass. 43, 47, 438 N.E.2d 831 (1982). Lodge v. District Attorney for the Suffolk Dist., 21 Mass.App.Ct. 277, 284, 486 N.E.2d 764 (1985). "Presentment ensures that the responsible public official receives notice of the claim so that that official can investigate to determine whether or not a claim is valid, preclude payment of inflated or nonmeritorious claims, settle valid claims expeditiously, and take steps to ensure that similar claims will not be brought in the future." Lodge v. District Attorney for the Suffolk Dist., supra at 283, 486 N.E.2d 764.
The complaint in the Federal lawsuit enclosed with James' presentment letters sets out the entire fact pattern relating to Prendergast's conduct, his murder of Patricia, and the alleged wrongful acts of county and State officials in dealing with Prendergast in light of what is alleged to have been known, or what is alleged should have been known, about his threats against Patricia. The complaint asserted, among other things, the following: (a) Patricia lived at home with eight of her eleven siblings; (b) Prendergast's threats and conduct created a reasonable belief in the minds of Patricia and her family that Prendergast, if allowed to be free, constituted a serious danger to Patricia's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pollard v. Georgetown Sch. Dist.
...statute.’ " Garcia v. Essex Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't , 65 Mass.App.Ct. 104, 107, 837 N.E.2d 284 (2005) (quoting Gilmore v. Commonwealth , 417 Mass. 718, 721, 632 N.E.2d 838 (1994) ). "[A]ctual presentment to the designated executive officer is required." Berube v. City of Northampton , 413 Mas......
-
Comeau v. Town of Webster
...Metro. Dist. Comm'n, 387 Mass. 51, 55, 438 N.E.2d 836 (1982), and strict compliance with the statute is the rule. Gilmore v. Com., 417 Mass. 718, 721–722, 632 N.E.2d 838 (1994) (citing Richardson v. Dailey, 424 Mass. 258, 261–262, 675 N.E.2d 787 (1997)). There is much law on how, when, and ......
-
Magliacane v. City of Gardner
...negligent infliction of emotional distress, even though that claim was not specified in the presentment. Gilmore v. Commonwealth, 417 Mass. 718, 719-720, 723, 632 N.E.2d 838 (1994). And where a plaintiff's presentment letter alleged that an executive department was negligent because, despit......
-
Estate of Gavin v. Tewksbury State Hosp.
...at 279–281, 486 N.E.2d 764; and was sufficiently detailed to identify the legal basis of the claimed wrong. See Gilmore v. Commonwealth, 417 Mass. 718, 723, 632 N.E.2d 838 (1994); Martin v. Commonwealth, supra at 528–529, 760 N.E.2d 313. The sole disputed issue is whether the presentment wa......