Preview
ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 1 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762
JOHN J. SCURA III, ESQ.,
(Attorney ID: 022771993)
SCURA, WIGFIELD, HEYER, STEVENS
& CAMMAROTA, LLP
1599 HAMBURG TURNPIKE
WAYNE, NJ 07470
Tel: (973) 696-8391
Fax: (973) 696-8571
Attorneys for Plaintiff
NICHOLAS A. PAGLIARA, ESQ.,
(Attorney ID: 054712014)
PAGLIARA LAW GROUP, P.A.
939 JFK Blvd. East Ste. 2
Weehawken, NJ 07086
Tel: (201) 470-4181
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
THOMASINA R. THORNTON, Guardian LAW DIVISION – ESSEX COUNTY
Ad Litem for CRAIG O’RILEY, an
incapacitated person, Docket No.:
Plaintiff,
v. COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, UNIVERSITY
HOSPITAL, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY,
UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE,
LLC d/b/a ALLIED UNIVERSAL
SECURITY SERVICES, JOHN DOES 1-
100 (fictitious defendants), ABC
CORPORATIONS 1-100 (fictitious
defendants),
Defendant.
Plaintiff, DeHavilland O’Riley, as Guardian Ad Litem for Craig O’Riley, an incapacitated
person (collectively referred to as “Plaintiff”), residing at 1060 Broad Street, #237, Newark, New
Jersey 07102, by way of Complaint says that:
ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 2 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762
PARTIES
1. The Plaintiff, Thomasina R. Thornton, Esq., is the Court appointed guardian ad
litem of incapacitated person Craig O’Riley, does not have any interest contrary to that of the
incapacitated person in this cause, and has consented to act as guardian ad litem. See Exhibit A
attached hereto.
2. Defendant University Hospital is a hospital located at 150 Bergen Street, Newark,
New Jersey 07103, and part of Defendant Rutgers University’s network of healthcare facilities.
3. Defendant, State of New Jersey, located at 25 Market Street Trenton, New Jersey,
owns and is responsible for the operations of the University Hospital and Rutgers University
employees and personnel. Reference to the University Hospital and Rutgers University throughout
this complaint shall also mean the State of New Jersey.
4. Rutgers University is located at 57 US Highway 1, New Brunswick, New Jersey
0890, and is the parent entity involved in the management and operations of Defendant University
Hospital.
5. Universal Protection Service, LLC d/b/a Allied Universal Security Services
(hereinafter referred to as “Allied Universal Security Services”) is the company that is contracted
with University Hospital to provide security services and is located at 50 Park Place, Newark, New
Jersey 07102
6. Defendants JOHN DOES 1-100 and ABC CORP. 1-100 are fictitious names for the
unidentified person or entities who participated in the action which give rise to this litigation and/or
aided and abetted the Defendants and are presently unknown to Plaintiff pending further
investigation and discovery.
ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 3 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762
BACKGROUND FACTS
7. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every prior paragraph of the Complaint as
if set forth herein.
8. On or around September 14, 2021, Craig O’Riley (hereinafter “Mr. O’Riley”), was
admitted to University Hospital, Crisis bed number 6, for mental health treatment.
9. Defendants understood that Mr. O’Riley was an extremely vulnerable patient in the
crisis unit of the hospital and the Defendants owed him a heightened duty to ensure his safety.
10. Shortly after Mr. O’Riley’s admission to University Hospital, in the early hours of
September 15, 2021, Mr. O’Riley was brutally and repeatedly assaulted by University Hospital
employee Dushaun Morris (hereinafter “Mr. Morris”).
11. Mr. Morris was captured on surveillance videos repeatedly assaulting Mr. O’Riley
without any provocation whatsoever.
12. The video revealed the following: Throughout the early hours of September 15,
2021, Mr. Morris assaulted Mr. O’Riley in the following manner: (1) at approximately 2:32 A.M.
Mr. Morris is seen tackling Mr. O’Riley onto his bed as Mr. O’Riley was simply standing within
the doorway to his room; (2) shortly after, at approximately 2:35 A.M., Mr. Morris is seen entering
Mr. O’Riley’s room forcing Mr. O’Riley into the corner by repeatedly hitting him in the torso as
he then stands over Mr. O’Riley in an aggressive and intimidating manner and continues to
verbally assaults him; (3) at approximately 5:09 A.M., as Mr. O’Riley is attempting to shut his
room door, Mr. Morris is seen charging towards Mr. O’Riley attempting to hit him with his fist
resulting in Mr. O’Riley flinching and backing away, Mr. Morris subsequently kicks Mr. O’Riley
in the leg; (4) at approximately 5:28 A.M., Mr. Morris is seen once again charging towards Mr.
O’Riley, as Mr. O’Riley has his back turned towards the door, and brutally tackles Mr. O’Riley
ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 4 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762
onto his bed once again and continues to verbally assault Mr. O’Riley; (5) at 5:34 A.M. Mr. Morris
is once again observed violently forcing Mr. O’Riley into his room and forcefully pushes him onto
his bed; (6) shortly after, between 5:35 and 5:39 A.M., Mr. Morris is seen restraining Mr. O’Riley
using straps attached to his bed and subsequently gagging Mr. O’Riley with what appears to be a
piece of tape, Mr. Morris then continues to stand over Mr. O’Riley in an intimidating and
aggressive manner as he is strapped to the bed and verbally assaults him; and (7) at 7:27 A.M. Mr.
Morris is seen charging into Mr. O’Riley’s room as he is strapped to his bed coming towards
Plaintiff as though he is about to attack, causing Plaintiff to recoil in fear of being assaulted once
again.
13. Following the above-described incidents, Mr. O’Riley attempted to report said
incident to University Hospital employees on approximately September 17, 2021. In response, Mr.
O’Riley was falsely informed by a currently unknown University Hospital employee that nothing
was seen on video regarding the assault that took place.
14. Mr. O’Riley ultimately filed a report with the Rutgers Police Department on
September 21, 2021.
15. Mr. O’Riley, through his temporary guardian, was also informed that Mark Bailey
(“Mr. Bailey”), an employee of Allied Universal Security Services, had negligently failed to
prevent Mr. Morris’ attack on Mr. O’Riley despite having knowledge of Mr. Morris’ intentions to
conduct said attack. Mark Bailey knew or should have known of the impending attach and took
no actions to prevent the attack.
16. As a result of Mr. Bailey’s negligence in failing to prevent Mr. Morris’ attack and
failing to protect Mr. O’Riley, there were no other University Hospital, Rutgers University, nor
Allied Universal Security Services employees within the area wherein the attack took place.
ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 5 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762
FIRST COUNT
17. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every prior paragraph of the Complaint as
if set forth herein.
18. Plaintiff have filed a timely Tort Claim Notice against the Defendant(s) pursuant to
the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:8-1 et seq., and has waited the jurisdictional six (6)
months (N.J.S.A. 59:8-8) before filing this action. Plaintiff have also sent notice to Defendants
University Hospital, Rutgers University, and the State of New Jersey.
19. Defendants, University Hospital, Rutgers University and the State of New Jersey,
and its employees and agents, owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care and breached that duty by
failing to protect Plaintiff from the actions and harms described above.
20. Defendants, University Hospital, Rutgers University and the State of New Jersey,
owed a duty of care to Plaintiff, Craig O’Riley, who suffered from mental issues, to provide
reasonable security and ensure that he received reasonable medical and psychiatric care
comporting with acceptable standards of care.
21. Defendants, University Hospital, Rutgers University and the State of New Jersey
and their employees and agents, breached their duty of care when they failed to provide adequate
security resulting in a violent attack upon Plaintiff by one of the Defendants’ employees and/or
agents. Their treatment of plaintiff deviated from acceptable standards of care and the conduct of
Defendants was palpably unreasonable.
22. At said time and place, Mr. O’Riley was brutally attacked by Mr. Morris and
suffered serious and permanent injuries as a result of the attack.
23. Defendants, University Hospital, Rutgers University, and the State of New Jersey,
were negligent, careless, reckless and/or palpably unreasonable in failing to exercise due care in
ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 6 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762
the hiring, supervision, retention, and training of their employees and/or agents, thus resulting in
a dangerous situation causing harm to Plaintiff. Defendants failed to have adequate staff on the
Crisis unit. Defendants knew or should have known of the propensities of Mr. Morris.
24. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence and recklessness of
Defendants, University Hospital, Rutgers University and the State of New Jersey, Plaintiff, Craig
O’Riley, has been permanently injured, was caused great pain and mental suffering, has incurred
and in the future will incur substantial expenses for the treatment of his injuries, has been
permanently disabled and not able to perform his usual functions or engage in his usual pursuits,
sustained multiple serious and permanent injuries, and in the future will be caused great pain and
suffering, due to his great loss and damage. Plaintiff’s costs of medical treatment and injuries
exceed the threshold under N.J.S.A. 59:9-2. Mr. O’Riley has a permanent loss of a bodily function,
permanent disfigurement or dismemberment, permanent psychiatric disability that significantly
impacts his life as well as medical treatment expenses in excess of $3,600 related to the defendant’s
actions/inactions.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for compensatory damages against
Defendants, University Hospital, Rutgers University, the State of New Jersey, and Allied
Universal Security Services together with attorney fees, interest and costs of suit.
SECOND COUNT
25. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every prior paragraph of the Complaint as
if set forth herein.
26. As parties dealing with the public, Defendants University Hospital and Rutgers
University were bound to use reasonable care in selecting employees, agents, and/or
representatives competent and fit for the work assigned to them and to refrain from retaining the
ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 7 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762
services of an unfit employee, agent, and/or representative.
27. Accordingly, the Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff to use due care and
circumspection when investigating the credentials of an ultimately hiring its employees or
representatives that dealt with the Plaintiff at Defendants’ behest.
28. Defendants knew or should have known that Dushaun Morris was unfit for the task
to which Defendants assigned said individual. Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff and breached
that duty.
29. Defendants knew or had reason to know of the particular unfitness or incompetence
of the aforesaid employee, agent, and/or representative and could reasonably have foreseen that
such characteristics created a risk of harm to the general public, such as the Plaintiff. Defendants’
actions/inactions were palpably unreasonable.
30. Defendants unnecessarily exposed Plaintiff to a risk of loss and injuries by hiring
Dushaun Morris and have therefore breached their duty of care to Plaintiff by hiring an employee,
agent, and/or representative who intentionally attacked the Plaintiff.
31. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness
of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been damaged. Plaintiff’s costs of medical treatment and injuries
exceed the threshold under N.J.S.A. 59:9-2. Mr. O’Riley has a permanent loss of a bodily function,
permanent disfigurement or dismemberment, permanent psychiatric disability that significantly
impacts his life as well as medical treatment expenses in excess of $3,600 related to the defendant’s
actions/inactions.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against all above-named Defendants for
compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, costs of suit, and any other relief as the Court may deem
just and proper.
ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 8 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762
THIRD COUNT
32. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every prior paragraph of the Complaint as
if set forth herein.
33. As parties dealing with the public, Defendants University Hospital and Rutgers
University had a duty of care to Plaintiff to supervise employees properly and in the best interest
of vulnerable patients such as Plaintiff.
34. Upon the hiring of Dushaun Morris, Defendants University Hospital and Rutgers
University failed to properly and supervise Dushaun Morris in the carrying out of his job
responsibilities.
35. At the time of Defendants acts and omissions, the Defendants failed or neglected
to exercise any control or supervision over Defendants’ employees, agents, or representatives.
Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff and breached their duty to protect Plaintiff. Defendants’
actions were palpably unreasonable.
36. Upon information and belief, no means were in place to detect misconduct or to
protect the Plaintiff. Defendants failed to have adequate staff on the Crisis unit which would have
prevented the attack by Dushaun Morris. The hospital procedures and protocol on this Crisis unit
were woefully deficient.
37. Defendants knew or had reason to suspect that Dushaun Morris was grossly
negligent and/or illegally handling the responsibilities of his position. Defendants neglected their
duty to patients such as Mr. O’Riley by negligently, recklessly, and/or willfully retaining and
failing to supervise Dushaun Morris.
38. It was foreseeable that Defendants conduct as described and complained of herein,
would result in harm to Mr. O’Riley and ultimately cause damage to him. As a result, thereof,
ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 9 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762
Plaintiff has in fact been damaged.
39. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness
of the Defendants, the State of New Jersey, University Hospital and Rutgers University, in failing
to properly supervise Dushaun Morris, Plaintiff has been damaged. Plaintiff’s costs of medical
treatment and injuries exceed the threshold under N.J.S.A. 59:9-2. Mr. O’Riley has a permanent
loss of a bodily function, permanent disfigurement or dismemberment, permanent psychiatric
disability that significantly impacts his life as well as medical treatment expenses in excess of
$3,600 related to the defendant’s actions/inactions.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against all above-named Defendants for
compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, costs of suit, and any other relief as the Court may deem
just and proper.
FOURTH COUNT
40. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every prior paragraph of the Complaint as
if set forth herein.
41. Defendants, University Hospital and Rutgers University, negligence, gross
negligence, and/or reckless conduct in failing to properly or adequately train Dushaun Morris as
an employee, agent, and/or representative directly and proximately caused Plaintiff to be subjected
to the conduct described above. Defendants owed the aforementioned duties to Plaintiff and
breached that duty.
42. As a proximate result of the aforementioned negligent training by Defendants
University Hospital and Rutgers University, and acts and omissions set forth herein, Plaintiff has
sustained damages and will, in the future, continue to suffer. Plaintiff’s costs of medical treatment
and injuries exceed the threshold under N.J.S.A. 59:9-2. Mr. O’Riley has a permanent loss of a
ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 10 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762
bodily function, permanent disfigurement or dismemberment, permanent psychiatric disability that
significantly impacts his life as well as medical treatment expenses in excess of $3,600 related to
the defendant’s actions/inactions.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against all above-named Defendants for
compensatory damages attorney’s fees, costs of suit, and any other relief as the Court may deem
just and proper.
FIFTH COUNT
43. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every prior paragraph of the Complaint as
if set forth herein.
44. As parties dealing with the public, Defendants State of New Jersey, University
Hospital and Rutgers University were bound to use reasonable care in providing adequate security
and/or protection protocols as to provide protection to individuals using the services of said
Defendants. Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff and breached that duty.
45. Accordingly, Defendants State of New Jersey, University Hospital and Rutgers
University owed Plaintiff a duty to use reasonable care in implementing adequate security and/or
protection protocols that would properly provide protection to any individual utilizing the
Defendants’ services, such as Mr. O’Riley. Defendants’ actions were palpably unreasonable.
46. Defendants, State of New Jersey, University Hospital and Rutgers University,
failed to exercise reasonable care in implementing and/or providing adequate security and/or
protection protocols on the premises in an effort to protect individuals, such as Mr. O’Riley, from
foreseeable assault by others. Mr. O’Riley was an extremely vulnerable patient in the psychiatric
unit of the hospital and the Defendants owed him a heightened duty to ensure his safety.
47. By negligently failing to provide adequate security and/or protection protocols,
ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 11 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762
Defendants State of New Jersey, University Hospital and Rutgers University created a foreseeable
risk of harm and unnecessarily exposed Plaintiff to a risk of loss and injuries and have therefore
breached their duty of care to Plaintiff. Defendants deviated from the applicable standard of
medical care in the protection of Mr. O’Riley.
48. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness
of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been damaged. Mr. O’Riley has a permanent loss of a bodily
function, permanent disfigurement or dismemberment, permanent psychiatric disability that
significantly impacts his life as well as medical treatment expenses in excess of $3,600 related to
the defendant’s actions/inactions.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against all above-named Defendants, for
compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, costs of suit, and any other relief as the Court may deem
just and proper.
SIXTH COUNT
49. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every prior paragraph of the Complaint as
if set forth herein.
50. As parties dealing with the public, Defendants University Hospital and Rutgers
University were bound to use reasonable care in selecting employees, agents, and/or
representatives competent and fit for the work assigned to them and to refrain from retaining the
services of unfit employees, agents, and/or representatives.
51. Accordingly, University Hospital and Rutgers University owed a duty to Plaintiff
to use due care and circumspection when investigating the credentials of and ultimately hiring its
employees or representatives that dealt with the Plaintiff at Defendant’s behest.
52. Defendants University Hospital and Rutgers University knew or should have
ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 12 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762
known that Allied Universal Security Services was unfit for the task to which Defendant hired said
company to accomplish.
53. Defendants University Hospital and Rutgers University knew or had reason to
know of the particular unfitness or incompetence of Allied Universal Security Services and
additionally could reasonably have foreseen that such characteristics created a risk of harm to the
general public, such as the Plaintiff.
54. By contracting with Allied Universal Security Services, Defendants University
Hospital and Rutgers University unnecessarily exposed Plaintiff to a risk of loss and injuries and
have therefore breached their duty of care to Plaintiff.
55. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness
of the Defendants, Plaintiff have been damaged. Mr. O’Riley has a permanent loss of a bodily
function, permanent disfigurement or dismemberment, permanent psychiatric disability that
significantly impacts his life as well as medical treatment expenses in excess of $3,600 related to
the defendant’s actions/inactions.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against all above-named Defendants for
compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, costs of suit, and any other relief as the Court may deem
just and proper.
SEVENTH COUNT
56. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every prior paragraph of the Complaint as
if set forth herein.
57. Defendant Allied Universal Security Services was bound to use reasonable care in
selecting employees, agents, and/or representatives competent and fit for the work assigned to
them and to refrain from retaining the services of an unfit employee, agent, and/or representative.
ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 13 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762
58. Accordingly, Defendant Allied Universal Security Services owed a duty to Plaintiff
to use due care and circumspection when investigating the credentials of and ultimately hiring its
employees or representatives that dealt with the Plaintiff at Defendant’s behest.
59. Defendant Allied Universal Security Services knew or should have known that
Mark Bailey or its other employees working at Defendant University Hospital was unfit for the
task to which Defendant assigned said individual. Defendants State of New Jersey, University
Hospital and Rutgers University are responsible for its security contractor that it hired as they have
non-delegable duty to provide adequate security in the hospital.
60. Defendant Allied knew or had reason to know of the particular unfitness or
incompetence of the aforesaid employees, agents, and/or representatives and could reasonably
have foreseen that such characteristics created a risk of harm to the general public, such as the
Plaintiff.
61. Defendant Allied Universal Security Services unnecessarily exposed Plaintiff to a
risk of loss and injuries by hiring Mark Bailey and other employees working at University Hospital
and have therefore breached their duty of care to Plaintiff by hiring employees, agents, and/or
representatives who recklessly and negligently acted or failed to act in preventing the attack on
Mr. O’Riley. Defendant Allied Universal Security Services owed a duty to plaintiff and breached
that duty.
62. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness
of the Defendants, Plaintiff has sustained permanent damage, injury and loss.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against all named Defendants for
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, costs of suit, and any other relief as the
Court may deem just and proper.
ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 14 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762
EIGTH COUNT
63. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every prior paragraph of the Complaint as
if set forth herein.
64. Defendant Allied Universal Security Services had a duty of care to Plaintiff to
supervise employees properly and in the best interest of vulnerable patients of University Hospital
such as Mr. O’Riley.
65. At the time of Defendant’s acts and omissions, the Defendant failed and/or
neglected to exercise any control or supervision over Defendant’s employees, agents, or
representatives.
66. Upon information and belief, no means were in place to detect misconduct or to
protect the Plaintiff. Defendants State of New Jersey, University Hospital and Rutgers University
are responsible for its security contractor that it hired as they have non-delegable duty to provide
adequate security in the hospital.
67. Defendant knew or had reason to suspect that Mark Bailey and its other employees
were negligent and reckless in handling the responsibilities of his position and was otherwise unfit
to perform the duties of his position. Defendant recklessly and negligently neglected their duty to
patients such as Mr. O’Riley by willfully and/or negligently failing to supervise Mark Bailey.
68. It was foreseeable that Defendant’s conduct as described and complained of herein,
would result in harm to Plaintiff and ultimately cause damage to Mr. O’Riley. As a result, thereof,
Plaintiff have in fact been damaged.
69. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness
of the Defendant, Plaintiff has sustained permanent injury, damage and loss.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant, Allied Universal
ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 15 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762
Security Services, for compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, costs of suit, and
any other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
NINTH COUNT
70. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every prior paragraph of the Complaint as
if set forth herein.
71. Defendant, Allied Universal Security Services, negligence, gross negligence,
and/or reckless conduct in failing to properly or adequately train Defendant Mark Bailey and its
other employees working at University Hospital as an employee, agent, and/or representative,
directly and proximately caused Plaintiff to be subjected to the conduct described above.
72. As a proximate result of the aforementioned negligent training by Defendant Allied
Universal Security Services, and acts and omissions set forth herein, Plaintiff have sustained
damages and will, in the future, continue to suffer.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgments against Defendant Allied Universal
Security Services, for compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, costs of suit, and
any other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
TENTH COUNT
73. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every prior paragraph of the Complaint as
if set forth herein.
74. Defendant Allied Universal Security Services engaged other employees or
individuals, including but not limited to Mark Bailey and John Does 1-100 to deal directly with
the public at large in providing security services.
75. Defendant Allied Universal Security Services is liable for the actions of its
employees/agents under respondeat superior. Accordingly, Allied Universal Security Services is
ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 16 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762
responsible for the negligent actions of its employees.
76. Providing adequate security in an effort to keep the general public safe was the
scope of the agency and/or employment relationship and Defendant’s employees acted under the
appearance of authority of said Defendant’s business and Plaintiff reasonably relied upon that
apparent authority in trust Defendants to provide adequate security. Defendant owed a duty to
plaintiff and breached that duty.
77. Said Defendant, Allied Universal Security Services, failed to exercise reasonable
care over the actions and practices of their employees, agents and/or representatives in providing
adequate security services.
78. Defendant, Allied Universal Security Services, could have or should have
reasonably foreseen the actions and/or inactions of its employees created a risk to the public at
large in utilizing their security services.
79. As a direct result of the negligence and recklessness of Defendant Allied Universal
Security Services and its employees/agents, Plaintiff has sustained permanent damage, injury and
loss.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Allied Universal Security
Services for compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, costs of suit and other
relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
ELEVENTH COUNT
80. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every prior paragraph of the Complaint as
if set forth herein.
81. Defendants, John Does 1-100, fictitious defendants, employees, agents, and
security guards/companies of Defendants University Hospital, Rutgers University, and Allied
ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 17 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762
Universal Security Services, owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care to Plaintiff Craig O’Riley,
who suffered from mental issues, to provide reasonable security and ensure that he received
reasonable medical care comporting with acceptable standard of care. John Does 1-100, are other
doctors, nurses and medical providers, security guards, employees of defendants, responsible for
the care, treatment and security of plaintiff Craig O’Riley.
82. The Defendants, John Does 1-100, breached their duty of care when they failed to
provide adequate security resulting in a violent attack upon Plaintiff. John Does 1-100 failed to
meet the requisite standard of care in failing to appropriately treat plaintiff Craig O’Riley.
83. The Defendants, John Does 1-100, were negligent and deviated from the acceptable
standard of care while plaintiff Craig O’Riley was a patient at their facilities or under their direct
care, and that negligence and deviation from the standard of care was the direct and proximate
cause of all the Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.
84. As a result of the actions and inactions of the Defendants, Plaintiff was caused to
suffer and sustain mental and physical injuries and losses. Plaintiff has sustained permanent
physical and psychological injuries because of the actions or inactions of the Defendants.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants JOHN DOES 1-100 for
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, costs of suit and other relief as the
Court may deem just and proper.
TWELFTH COUNT
85. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as
previously set forth in the Complaint.
86. Defendants, ABC Corp. 1-100, breached their duty of care when they failed to
provide adequate security resulting in a violent attack upon Plaintiff Mr. O’Riley.
ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 18 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762
87. The Defendants, ABC Corp. 1-100, were negligent and deviated from the
acceptable standard of care while Plaintiff was a patient at their facilities or under their direct care,
and that negligence and deviation from the standard of care was the direct and proximate cause of
all the Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. Defendants owed a duty of care to Plaintiff and deviated
from that standard of care.
88. As a result of the actions and inactions of the Defendants as aforesaid, Plaintiff
were caused to suffer and sustain mental and physical injuries and losses. Plaintiff has sustained
permanent physical and psychological injuries because of the actions or inactions of defendants.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants ABC CORP. 1-100 for
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, costs of suit and other relief as the
Court may deem just and proper.
SCURA, WIGFIELD, HEYER & STEVENS &
CAMMAROTA, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Dated: August 30, 2023 /s/ John J. Scura III, Esq.
By: John J. Scura III, Esq.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
SCURA, WIGFIELD, HEYER & STEVENS &
CAMMAROTA, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Dated: August 30, 2023 /s/ John J. Scura III, Esq.
By: John J. Scura III, Esq.
ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 19 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762
DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL
Pursuant to R. 4:25-4, John J. Scura III, Esq., is hereby designated as trial counsel herein.
SCURA, WIGFIELD, HEYER & STEVENS &
CAMMAROTA, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Dated: August 30, 2023 /s/ John J. Scura III, Esq.
By: John J. Scura III, Esq.
RULE 4: 5-1 CERTIFICATION
Plaintiff hereby certifies that the matter in controversy is not the subject of any other
action pending in any court and likewise not the subject of any pending arbitration proceeding.
Plaintiff further certify that they have no knowledge of any contemplated action or arbitration
proceeding which is contemplated regarding the subject matter of this action and that they are
not aware of any other parties who should be joined in this action.
SCURA, WIGFIELD, HEYER & STEVENS &
CAMMAROTA, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Dated: August 30, 2023 /s/ John J. Scura III, Esq.
By: John J. Scura III, Esq.
ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 20 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762
RULE 4:5-1(b)(3) CERTIFICATION
I certify that confidential personal identifiers have been redacted from documents now
submitted to the court and will be redacted from all documents submitted in the future in
accordance with Rule 1:38-7(b).
SCURA, WIGFIELD, HEYER & STEVENS &
CAMMAROTA, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Dated: August 30, 2023 /s/ John J. Scura III, Esq.
By: John J. Scura III, Esq.
RULE 4:26-2(b)(1) CERTIFICATION
I certify that Thomasina R. Thornton, the court appointed guardian ad litem of Craig
O’Riley, hereby consents to act as guardian in this matter on behalf of son Craig O’Riley
currently an incapacitated individual, and that no conflict of interest exists.
SCURA, WIGFIELD, HEYER, STEVENS &
CAMMAROTA, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Dated: August 30, 2023 /s/ John J. Scura III
By: John J. Scura III, Esq.
ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 21 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762
Exhibit “A”
ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 22 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762
ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 23 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762
ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023
ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/20231:35:14
1:35:14PM
PM Pg 1 of 2 Trans
TransID:
ID:LCV20232483762
LCV20232483762
Civil Case Information Statement
Case Details: ESSEX | Civil Part Docket# L-005607-23
Case Caption: THORNTON THOMASINA VS STATE OF Case Type: PERSONAL INJURY
NEW JERSEY Document Type: Complaint with Jury Demand
Case Initiation Date: 08/30/2023 Jury Demand: YES - 6 JURORS
Attorney Name: JOHN J SCURA III Is this a professional malpractice case? NO
Firm Name: SCURA WIGFIELD HEYER, STEVENS & Related cases pending: NO
CAMMAROTA LLP If yes, list docket numbers:
Address: 1599 HAMBURG TPKE Do you anticipate adding any parties (arising out of same
WAYNE NJ 07470 transaction or occurrence)? NO
Phone: 9736968391 Does this case involve claims related to COVID-19? NO
Name of Party: PLAINTIFF : Thornton, Thomasina, R
Name of Defendant’s Primary Insurance Company Are sexual abuse claims alleged by: Thomasina R Thornton? NO
(if known): Unknown
THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS FORM CANNOT BE INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE
CASE CHARACTERISTICS FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING IF CASE IS APPROPRIATE FOR MEDIATION
Do parties have a current, past, or recurrent relationship? NO
If yes, is that relationship:
Does the statute governing this case provide for payment of fees by the losing party? NO
Use this space to alert the court to any special case characteristics that may warrant individual
management or accelerated disposition:
Do you or your client need any disability accommodations? NO
If yes, please identify the requested accommodation:
Will an interpreter be needed? NO
If yes, for what language:
Please check off each applicable category: Putative Class Action? NO Title 59? NO Consumer Fraud? NO
I certify that confidential personal identifiers have been redacted from documents now submitted to the
court, and will be redacted from all documents submitted in the future in accordance with Rule 1:38-7(b)
08/30/2023 /s/ JOHN J SCURA III
Dated Signed
ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023
ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/20231:35:14
1:35:14PM
PM Pg 2 of 2 Trans
TransID:
ID:LCV20232483762
LCV20232483762
Preview
ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 1 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762 JOHN J. SCURA III, ESQ., (Attorney ID: 022771993) SCURA, WIGFIELD, HEYER, STEVENS & CAMMAROTA, LLP 1599 HAMBURG TURNPIKE WAYNE, NJ 07470 Tel: (973) 696-8391 Fax: (973) 696-8571 Attorneys for Plaintiff NICHOLAS A. PAGLIARA, ESQ., (Attorney ID: 054712014) PAGLIARA LAW GROUP, P.A. 939 JFK Blvd. East Ste. 2 Weehawken, NJ 07086 Tel: (201) 470-4181 Attorneys for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY THOMASINA R. THORNTON, Guardian LAW DIVISION – ESSEX COUNTY Ad Litem for CRAIG O’RILEY, an incapacitated person, Docket No.: Plaintiff, v. COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND STATE OF NEW JERSEY, UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE, LLC d/b/a ALLIED UNIVERSAL SECURITY SERVICES, JOHN DOES 1- 100 (fictitious defendants), ABC CORPORATIONS 1-100 (fictitious defendants), Defendant. Plaintiff, DeHavilland O’Riley, as Guardian Ad Litem for Craig O’Riley, an incapacitated person (collectively referred to as “Plaintiff”), residing at 1060 Broad Street, #237, Newark, New Jersey 07102, by way of Complaint says that: ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 2 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762 PARTIES 1. The Plaintiff, Thomasina R. Thornton, Esq., is the Court appointed guardian ad litem of incapacitated person Craig O’Riley, does not have any interest contrary to that of the incapacitated person in this cause, and has consented to act as guardian ad litem. See Exhibit A attached hereto. 2. Defendant University Hospital is a hospital located at 150 Bergen Street, Newark, New Jersey 07103, and part of Defendant Rutgers University’s network of healthcare facilities. 3. Defendant, State of New Jersey, located at 25 Market Street Trenton, New Jersey, owns and is responsible for the operations of the University Hospital and Rutgers University employees and personnel. Reference to the University Hospital and Rutgers University throughout this complaint shall also mean the State of New Jersey. 4. Rutgers University is located at 57 US Highway 1, New Brunswick, New Jersey 0890, and is the parent entity involved in the management and operations of Defendant University Hospital. 5. Universal Protection Service, LLC d/b/a Allied Universal Security Services (hereinafter referred to as “Allied Universal Security Services”) is the company that is contracted with University Hospital to provide security services and is located at 50 Park Place, Newark, New Jersey 07102 6. Defendants JOHN DOES 1-100 and ABC CORP. 1-100 are fictitious names for the unidentified person or entities who participated in the action which give rise to this litigation and/or aided and abetted the Defendants and are presently unknown to Plaintiff pending further investigation and discovery. ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 3 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762 BACKGROUND FACTS 7. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every prior paragraph of the Complaint as if set forth herein. 8. On or around September 14, 2021, Craig O’Riley (hereinafter “Mr. O’Riley”), was admitted to University Hospital, Crisis bed number 6, for mental health treatment. 9. Defendants understood that Mr. O’Riley was an extremely vulnerable patient in the crisis unit of the hospital and the Defendants owed him a heightened duty to ensure his safety. 10. Shortly after Mr. O’Riley’s admission to University Hospital, in the early hours of September 15, 2021, Mr. O’Riley was brutally and repeatedly assaulted by University Hospital employee Dushaun Morris (hereinafter “Mr. Morris”). 11. Mr. Morris was captured on surveillance videos repeatedly assaulting Mr. O’Riley without any provocation whatsoever. 12. The video revealed the following: Throughout the early hours of September 15, 2021, Mr. Morris assaulted Mr. O’Riley in the following manner: (1) at approximately 2:32 A.M. Mr. Morris is seen tackling Mr. O’Riley onto his bed as Mr. O’Riley was simply standing within the doorway to his room; (2) shortly after, at approximately 2:35 A.M., Mr. Morris is seen entering Mr. O’Riley’s room forcing Mr. O’Riley into the corner by repeatedly hitting him in the torso as he then stands over Mr. O’Riley in an aggressive and intimidating manner and continues to verbally assaults him; (3) at approximately 5:09 A.M., as Mr. O’Riley is attempting to shut his room door, Mr. Morris is seen charging towards Mr. O’Riley attempting to hit him with his fist resulting in Mr. O’Riley flinching and backing away, Mr. Morris subsequently kicks Mr. O’Riley in the leg; (4) at approximately 5:28 A.M., Mr. Morris is seen once again charging towards Mr. O’Riley, as Mr. O’Riley has his back turned towards the door, and brutally tackles Mr. O’Riley ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 4 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762 onto his bed once again and continues to verbally assault Mr. O’Riley; (5) at 5:34 A.M. Mr. Morris is once again observed violently forcing Mr. O’Riley into his room and forcefully pushes him onto his bed; (6) shortly after, between 5:35 and 5:39 A.M., Mr. Morris is seen restraining Mr. O’Riley using straps attached to his bed and subsequently gagging Mr. O’Riley with what appears to be a piece of tape, Mr. Morris then continues to stand over Mr. O’Riley in an intimidating and aggressive manner as he is strapped to the bed and verbally assaults him; and (7) at 7:27 A.M. Mr. Morris is seen charging into Mr. O’Riley’s room as he is strapped to his bed coming towards Plaintiff as though he is about to attack, causing Plaintiff to recoil in fear of being assaulted once again. 13. Following the above-described incidents, Mr. O’Riley attempted to report said incident to University Hospital employees on approximately September 17, 2021. In response, Mr. O’Riley was falsely informed by a currently unknown University Hospital employee that nothing was seen on video regarding the assault that took place. 14. Mr. O’Riley ultimately filed a report with the Rutgers Police Department on September 21, 2021. 15. Mr. O’Riley, through his temporary guardian, was also informed that Mark Bailey (“Mr. Bailey”), an employee of Allied Universal Security Services, had negligently failed to prevent Mr. Morris’ attack on Mr. O’Riley despite having knowledge of Mr. Morris’ intentions to conduct said attack. Mark Bailey knew or should have known of the impending attach and took no actions to prevent the attack. 16. As a result of Mr. Bailey’s negligence in failing to prevent Mr. Morris’ attack and failing to protect Mr. O’Riley, there were no other University Hospital, Rutgers University, nor Allied Universal Security Services employees within the area wherein the attack took place. ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 5 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762 FIRST COUNT 17. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every prior paragraph of the Complaint as if set forth herein. 18. Plaintiff have filed a timely Tort Claim Notice against the Defendant(s) pursuant to the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:8-1 et seq., and has waited the jurisdictional six (6) months (N.J.S.A. 59:8-8) before filing this action. Plaintiff have also sent notice to Defendants University Hospital, Rutgers University, and the State of New Jersey. 19. Defendants, University Hospital, Rutgers University and the State of New Jersey, and its employees and agents, owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care and breached that duty by failing to protect Plaintiff from the actions and harms described above. 20. Defendants, University Hospital, Rutgers University and the State of New Jersey, owed a duty of care to Plaintiff, Craig O’Riley, who suffered from mental issues, to provide reasonable security and ensure that he received reasonable medical and psychiatric care comporting with acceptable standards of care. 21. Defendants, University Hospital, Rutgers University and the State of New Jersey and their employees and agents, breached their duty of care when they failed to provide adequate security resulting in a violent attack upon Plaintiff by one of the Defendants’ employees and/or agents. Their treatment of plaintiff deviated from acceptable standards of care and the conduct of Defendants was palpably unreasonable. 22. At said time and place, Mr. O’Riley was brutally attacked by Mr. Morris and suffered serious and permanent injuries as a result of the attack. 23. Defendants, University Hospital, Rutgers University, and the State of New Jersey, were negligent, careless, reckless and/or palpably unreasonable in failing to exercise due care in ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 6 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762 the hiring, supervision, retention, and training of their employees and/or agents, thus resulting in a dangerous situation causing harm to Plaintiff. Defendants failed to have adequate staff on the Crisis unit. Defendants knew or should have known of the propensities of Mr. Morris. 24. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence and recklessness of Defendants, University Hospital, Rutgers University and the State of New Jersey, Plaintiff, Craig O’Riley, has been permanently injured, was caused great pain and mental suffering, has incurred and in the future will incur substantial expenses for the treatment of his injuries, has been permanently disabled and not able to perform his usual functions or engage in his usual pursuits, sustained multiple serious and permanent injuries, and in the future will be caused great pain and suffering, due to his great loss and damage. Plaintiff’s costs of medical treatment and injuries exceed the threshold under N.J.S.A. 59:9-2. Mr. O’Riley has a permanent loss of a bodily function, permanent disfigurement or dismemberment, permanent psychiatric disability that significantly impacts his life as well as medical treatment expenses in excess of $3,600 related to the defendant’s actions/inactions. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for compensatory damages against Defendants, University Hospital, Rutgers University, the State of New Jersey, and Allied Universal Security Services together with attorney fees, interest and costs of suit. SECOND COUNT 25. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every prior paragraph of the Complaint as if set forth herein. 26. As parties dealing with the public, Defendants University Hospital and Rutgers University were bound to use reasonable care in selecting employees, agents, and/or representatives competent and fit for the work assigned to them and to refrain from retaining the ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 7 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762 services of an unfit employee, agent, and/or representative. 27. Accordingly, the Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff to use due care and circumspection when investigating the credentials of an ultimately hiring its employees or representatives that dealt with the Plaintiff at Defendants’ behest. 28. Defendants knew or should have known that Dushaun Morris was unfit for the task to which Defendants assigned said individual. Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff and breached that duty. 29. Defendants knew or had reason to know of the particular unfitness or incompetence of the aforesaid employee, agent, and/or representative and could reasonably have foreseen that such characteristics created a risk of harm to the general public, such as the Plaintiff. Defendants’ actions/inactions were palpably unreasonable. 30. Defendants unnecessarily exposed Plaintiff to a risk of loss and injuries by hiring Dushaun Morris and have therefore breached their duty of care to Plaintiff by hiring an employee, agent, and/or representative who intentionally attacked the Plaintiff. 31. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been damaged. Plaintiff’s costs of medical treatment and injuries exceed the threshold under N.J.S.A. 59:9-2. Mr. O’Riley has a permanent loss of a bodily function, permanent disfigurement or dismemberment, permanent psychiatric disability that significantly impacts his life as well as medical treatment expenses in excess of $3,600 related to the defendant’s actions/inactions. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against all above-named Defendants for compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, costs of suit, and any other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 8 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762 THIRD COUNT 32. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every prior paragraph of the Complaint as if set forth herein. 33. As parties dealing with the public, Defendants University Hospital and Rutgers University had a duty of care to Plaintiff to supervise employees properly and in the best interest of vulnerable patients such as Plaintiff. 34. Upon the hiring of Dushaun Morris, Defendants University Hospital and Rutgers University failed to properly and supervise Dushaun Morris in the carrying out of his job responsibilities. 35. At the time of Defendants acts and omissions, the Defendants failed or neglected to exercise any control or supervision over Defendants’ employees, agents, or representatives. Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff and breached their duty to protect Plaintiff. Defendants’ actions were palpably unreasonable. 36. Upon information and belief, no means were in place to detect misconduct or to protect the Plaintiff. Defendants failed to have adequate staff on the Crisis unit which would have prevented the attack by Dushaun Morris. The hospital procedures and protocol on this Crisis unit were woefully deficient. 37. Defendants knew or had reason to suspect that Dushaun Morris was grossly negligent and/or illegally handling the responsibilities of his position. Defendants neglected their duty to patients such as Mr. O’Riley by negligently, recklessly, and/or willfully retaining and failing to supervise Dushaun Morris. 38. It was foreseeable that Defendants conduct as described and complained of herein, would result in harm to Mr. O’Riley and ultimately cause damage to him. As a result, thereof, ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 9 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762 Plaintiff has in fact been damaged. 39. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness of the Defendants, the State of New Jersey, University Hospital and Rutgers University, in failing to properly supervise Dushaun Morris, Plaintiff has been damaged. Plaintiff’s costs of medical treatment and injuries exceed the threshold under N.J.S.A. 59:9-2. Mr. O’Riley has a permanent loss of a bodily function, permanent disfigurement or dismemberment, permanent psychiatric disability that significantly impacts his life as well as medical treatment expenses in excess of $3,600 related to the defendant’s actions/inactions. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against all above-named Defendants for compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, costs of suit, and any other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. FOURTH COUNT 40. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every prior paragraph of the Complaint as if set forth herein. 41. Defendants, University Hospital and Rutgers University, negligence, gross negligence, and/or reckless conduct in failing to properly or adequately train Dushaun Morris as an employee, agent, and/or representative directly and proximately caused Plaintiff to be subjected to the conduct described above. Defendants owed the aforementioned duties to Plaintiff and breached that duty. 42. As a proximate result of the aforementioned negligent training by Defendants University Hospital and Rutgers University, and acts and omissions set forth herein, Plaintiff has sustained damages and will, in the future, continue to suffer. Plaintiff’s costs of medical treatment and injuries exceed the threshold under N.J.S.A. 59:9-2. Mr. O’Riley has a permanent loss of a ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 10 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762 bodily function, permanent disfigurement or dismemberment, permanent psychiatric disability that significantly impacts his life as well as medical treatment expenses in excess of $3,600 related to the defendant’s actions/inactions. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against all above-named Defendants for compensatory damages attorney’s fees, costs of suit, and any other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. FIFTH COUNT 43. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every prior paragraph of the Complaint as if set forth herein. 44. As parties dealing with the public, Defendants State of New Jersey, University Hospital and Rutgers University were bound to use reasonable care in providing adequate security and/or protection protocols as to provide protection to individuals using the services of said Defendants. Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff and breached that duty. 45. Accordingly, Defendants State of New Jersey, University Hospital and Rutgers University owed Plaintiff a duty to use reasonable care in implementing adequate security and/or protection protocols that would properly provide protection to any individual utilizing the Defendants’ services, such as Mr. O’Riley. Defendants’ actions were palpably unreasonable. 46. Defendants, State of New Jersey, University Hospital and Rutgers University, failed to exercise reasonable care in implementing and/or providing adequate security and/or protection protocols on the premises in an effort to protect individuals, such as Mr. O’Riley, from foreseeable assault by others. Mr. O’Riley was an extremely vulnerable patient in the psychiatric unit of the hospital and the Defendants owed him a heightened duty to ensure his safety. 47. By negligently failing to provide adequate security and/or protection protocols, ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 11 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762 Defendants State of New Jersey, University Hospital and Rutgers University created a foreseeable risk of harm and unnecessarily exposed Plaintiff to a risk of loss and injuries and have therefore breached their duty of care to Plaintiff. Defendants deviated from the applicable standard of medical care in the protection of Mr. O’Riley. 48. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been damaged. Mr. O’Riley has a permanent loss of a bodily function, permanent disfigurement or dismemberment, permanent psychiatric disability that significantly impacts his life as well as medical treatment expenses in excess of $3,600 related to the defendant’s actions/inactions. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against all above-named Defendants, for compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, costs of suit, and any other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. SIXTH COUNT 49. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every prior paragraph of the Complaint as if set forth herein. 50. As parties dealing with the public, Defendants University Hospital and Rutgers University were bound to use reasonable care in selecting employees, agents, and/or representatives competent and fit for the work assigned to them and to refrain from retaining the services of unfit employees, agents, and/or representatives. 51. Accordingly, University Hospital and Rutgers University owed a duty to Plaintiff to use due care and circumspection when investigating the credentials of and ultimately hiring its employees or representatives that dealt with the Plaintiff at Defendant’s behest. 52. Defendants University Hospital and Rutgers University knew or should have ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 12 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762 known that Allied Universal Security Services was unfit for the task to which Defendant hired said company to accomplish. 53. Defendants University Hospital and Rutgers University knew or had reason to know of the particular unfitness or incompetence of Allied Universal Security Services and additionally could reasonably have foreseen that such characteristics created a risk of harm to the general public, such as the Plaintiff. 54. By contracting with Allied Universal Security Services, Defendants University Hospital and Rutgers University unnecessarily exposed Plaintiff to a risk of loss and injuries and have therefore breached their duty of care to Plaintiff. 55. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness of the Defendants, Plaintiff have been damaged. Mr. O’Riley has a permanent loss of a bodily function, permanent disfigurement or dismemberment, permanent psychiatric disability that significantly impacts his life as well as medical treatment expenses in excess of $3,600 related to the defendant’s actions/inactions. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against all above-named Defendants for compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, costs of suit, and any other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. SEVENTH COUNT 56. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every prior paragraph of the Complaint as if set forth herein. 57. Defendant Allied Universal Security Services was bound to use reasonable care in selecting employees, agents, and/or representatives competent and fit for the work assigned to them and to refrain from retaining the services of an unfit employee, agent, and/or representative. ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 13 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762 58. Accordingly, Defendant Allied Universal Security Services owed a duty to Plaintiff to use due care and circumspection when investigating the credentials of and ultimately hiring its employees or representatives that dealt with the Plaintiff at Defendant’s behest. 59. Defendant Allied Universal Security Services knew or should have known that Mark Bailey or its other employees working at Defendant University Hospital was unfit for the task to which Defendant assigned said individual. Defendants State of New Jersey, University Hospital and Rutgers University are responsible for its security contractor that it hired as they have non-delegable duty to provide adequate security in the hospital. 60. Defendant Allied knew or had reason to know of the particular unfitness or incompetence of the aforesaid employees, agents, and/or representatives and could reasonably have foreseen that such characteristics created a risk of harm to the general public, such as the Plaintiff. 61. Defendant Allied Universal Security Services unnecessarily exposed Plaintiff to a risk of loss and injuries by hiring Mark Bailey and other employees working at University Hospital and have therefore breached their duty of care to Plaintiff by hiring employees, agents, and/or representatives who recklessly and negligently acted or failed to act in preventing the attack on Mr. O’Riley. Defendant Allied Universal Security Services owed a duty to plaintiff and breached that duty. 62. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness of the Defendants, Plaintiff has sustained permanent damage, injury and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against all named Defendants for compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, costs of suit, and any other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 14 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762 EIGTH COUNT 63. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every prior paragraph of the Complaint as if set forth herein. 64. Defendant Allied Universal Security Services had a duty of care to Plaintiff to supervise employees properly and in the best interest of vulnerable patients of University Hospital such as Mr. O’Riley. 65. At the time of Defendant’s acts and omissions, the Defendant failed and/or neglected to exercise any control or supervision over Defendant’s employees, agents, or representatives. 66. Upon information and belief, no means were in place to detect misconduct or to protect the Plaintiff. Defendants State of New Jersey, University Hospital and Rutgers University are responsible for its security contractor that it hired as they have non-delegable duty to provide adequate security in the hospital. 67. Defendant knew or had reason to suspect that Mark Bailey and its other employees were negligent and reckless in handling the responsibilities of his position and was otherwise unfit to perform the duties of his position. Defendant recklessly and negligently neglected their duty to patients such as Mr. O’Riley by willfully and/or negligently failing to supervise Mark Bailey. 68. It was foreseeable that Defendant’s conduct as described and complained of herein, would result in harm to Plaintiff and ultimately cause damage to Mr. O’Riley. As a result, thereof, Plaintiff have in fact been damaged. 69. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness of the Defendant, Plaintiff has sustained permanent injury, damage and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant, Allied Universal ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 15 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762 Security Services, for compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, costs of suit, and any other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. NINTH COUNT 70. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every prior paragraph of the Complaint as if set forth herein. 71. Defendant, Allied Universal Security Services, negligence, gross negligence, and/or reckless conduct in failing to properly or adequately train Defendant Mark Bailey and its other employees working at University Hospital as an employee, agent, and/or representative, directly and proximately caused Plaintiff to be subjected to the conduct described above. 72. As a proximate result of the aforementioned negligent training by Defendant Allied Universal Security Services, and acts and omissions set forth herein, Plaintiff have sustained damages and will, in the future, continue to suffer. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgments against Defendant Allied Universal Security Services, for compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, costs of suit, and any other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. TENTH COUNT 73. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every prior paragraph of the Complaint as if set forth herein. 74. Defendant Allied Universal Security Services engaged other employees or individuals, including but not limited to Mark Bailey and John Does 1-100 to deal directly with the public at large in providing security services. 75. Defendant Allied Universal Security Services is liable for the actions of its employees/agents under respondeat superior. Accordingly, Allied Universal Security Services is ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 16 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762 responsible for the negligent actions of its employees. 76. Providing adequate security in an effort to keep the general public safe was the scope of the agency and/or employment relationship and Defendant’s employees acted under the appearance of authority of said Defendant’s business and Plaintiff reasonably relied upon that apparent authority in trust Defendants to provide adequate security. Defendant owed a duty to plaintiff and breached that duty. 77. Said Defendant, Allied Universal Security Services, failed to exercise reasonable care over the actions and practices of their employees, agents and/or representatives in providing adequate security services. 78. Defendant, Allied Universal Security Services, could have or should have reasonably foreseen the actions and/or inactions of its employees created a risk to the public at large in utilizing their security services. 79. As a direct result of the negligence and recklessness of Defendant Allied Universal Security Services and its employees/agents, Plaintiff has sustained permanent damage, injury and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Allied Universal Security Services for compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, costs of suit and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. ELEVENTH COUNT 80. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every prior paragraph of the Complaint as if set forth herein. 81. Defendants, John Does 1-100, fictitious defendants, employees, agents, and security guards/companies of Defendants University Hospital, Rutgers University, and Allied ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 17 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762 Universal Security Services, owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care to Plaintiff Craig O’Riley, who suffered from mental issues, to provide reasonable security and ensure that he received reasonable medical care comporting with acceptable standard of care. John Does 1-100, are other doctors, nurses and medical providers, security guards, employees of defendants, responsible for the care, treatment and security of plaintiff Craig O’Riley. 82. The Defendants, John Does 1-100, breached their duty of care when they failed to provide adequate security resulting in a violent attack upon Plaintiff. John Does 1-100 failed to meet the requisite standard of care in failing to appropriately treat plaintiff Craig O’Riley. 83. The Defendants, John Does 1-100, were negligent and deviated from the acceptable standard of care while plaintiff Craig O’Riley was a patient at their facilities or under their direct care, and that negligence and deviation from the standard of care was the direct and proximate cause of all the Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. 84. As a result of the actions and inactions of the Defendants, Plaintiff was caused to suffer and sustain mental and physical injuries and losses. Plaintiff has sustained permanent physical and psychological injuries because of the actions or inactions of the Defendants. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants JOHN DOES 1-100 for compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, costs of suit and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. TWELFTH COUNT 85. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as previously set forth in the Complaint. 86. Defendants, ABC Corp. 1-100, breached their duty of care when they failed to provide adequate security resulting in a violent attack upon Plaintiff Mr. O’Riley. ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 18 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762 87. The Defendants, ABC Corp. 1-100, were negligent and deviated from the acceptable standard of care while Plaintiff was a patient at their facilities or under their direct care, and that negligence and deviation from the standard of care was the direct and proximate cause of all the Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. Defendants owed a duty of care to Plaintiff and deviated from that standard of care. 88. As a result of the actions and inactions of the Defendants as aforesaid, Plaintiff were caused to suffer and sustain mental and physical injuries and losses. Plaintiff has sustained permanent physical and psychological injuries because of the actions or inactions of defendants. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants ABC CORP. 1-100 for compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, costs of suit and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. SCURA, WIGFIELD, HEYER & STEVENS & CAMMAROTA, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff Dated: August 30, 2023 /s/ John J. Scura III, Esq. By: John J. Scura III, Esq. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. SCURA, WIGFIELD, HEYER & STEVENS & CAMMAROTA, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff Dated: August 30, 2023 /s/ John J. Scura III, Esq. By: John J. Scura III, Esq. ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 19 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762 DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL Pursuant to R. 4:25-4, John J. Scura III, Esq., is hereby designated as trial counsel herein. SCURA, WIGFIELD, HEYER & STEVENS & CAMMAROTA, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff Dated: August 30, 2023 /s/ John J. Scura III, Esq. By: John J. Scura III, Esq. RULE 4: 5-1 CERTIFICATION Plaintiff hereby certifies that the matter in controversy is not the subject of any other action pending in any court and likewise not the subject of any pending arbitration proceeding. Plaintiff further certify that they have no knowledge of any contemplated action or arbitration proceeding which is contemplated regarding the subject matter of this action and that they are not aware of any other parties who should be joined in this action. SCURA, WIGFIELD, HEYER & STEVENS & CAMMAROTA, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff Dated: August 30, 2023 /s/ John J. Scura III, Esq. By: John J. Scura III, Esq. ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 20 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762 RULE 4:5-1(b)(3) CERTIFICATION I certify that confidential personal identifiers have been redacted from documents now submitted to the court and will be redacted from all documents submitted in the future in accordance with Rule 1:38-7(b). SCURA, WIGFIELD, HEYER & STEVENS & CAMMAROTA, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff Dated: August 30, 2023 /s/ John J. Scura III, Esq. By: John J. Scura III, Esq. RULE 4:26-2(b)(1) CERTIFICATION I certify that Thomasina R. Thornton, the court appointed guardian ad litem of Craig O’Riley, hereby consents to act as guardian in this matter on behalf of son Craig O’Riley currently an incapacitated individual, and that no conflict of interest exists. SCURA, WIGFIELD, HEYER, STEVENS & CAMMAROTA, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff Dated: August 30, 2023 /s/ John J. Scura III By: John J. Scura III, Esq. ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 21 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762 Exhibit “A” ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 22 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762 ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 1:35:14 PM Pg 23 of 23 Trans ID: LCV20232483762 ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/20231:35:14 1:35:14PM PM Pg 1 of 2 Trans TransID: ID:LCV20232483762 LCV20232483762 Civil Case Information Statement Case Details: ESSEX | Civil Part Docket# L-005607-23 Case Caption: THORNTON THOMASINA VS STATE OF Case Type: PERSONAL INJURY NEW JERSEY Document Type: Complaint with Jury Demand Case Initiation Date: 08/30/2023 Jury Demand: YES - 6 JURORS Attorney Name: JOHN J SCURA III Is this a professional malpractice case? NO Firm Name: SCURA WIGFIELD HEYER, STEVENS & Related cases pending: NO CAMMAROTA LLP If yes, list docket numbers: Address: 1599 HAMBURG TPKE Do you anticipate adding any parties (arising out of same WAYNE NJ 07470 transaction or occurrence)? NO Phone: 9736968391 Does this case involve claims related to COVID-19? NO Name of Party: PLAINTIFF : Thornton, Thomasina, R Name of Defendant’s Primary Insurance Company Are sexual abuse claims alleged by: Thomasina R Thornton? NO (if known): Unknown THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS FORM CANNOT BE INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE CASE CHARACTERISTICS FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING IF CASE IS APPROPRIATE FOR MEDIATION Do parties have a current, past, or recurrent relationship? NO If yes, is that relationship: Does the statute governing this case provide for payment of fees by the losing party? NO Use this space to alert the court to any special case characteristics that may warrant individual management or accelerated disposition: Do you or your client need any disability accommodations? NO If yes, please identify the requested accommodation: Will an interpreter be needed? NO If yes, for what language: Please check off each applicable category: Putative Class Action? NO Title 59? NO Consumer Fraud? NO I certify that confidential personal identifiers have been redacted from documents now submitted to the court, and will be redacted from all documents submitted in the future in accordance with Rule 1:38-7(b) 08/30/2023 /s/ JOHN J SCURA III Dated Signed ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/2023 ESX-L-005607-23 08/30/20231:35:14 1:35:14PM PM Pg 2 of 2 Trans TransID: ID:LCV20232483762 LCV20232483762