Preview
e e 47 428
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Hampshire County SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
OF THE TRIAL COURT
THE ESTATES OF EDWARD DANIEL AND BRITTANY DANIELLE MCGRATH
As represented by: CHELSEA MCGRATH AND IRIS MCGRATH
Plaintiffs
RAMPSHIR: SuermIOn con IAT
Versus Civil Action No.
_ 7
THE CITY OF HOLYOKE, MASSACHUSETTS AUG 25 2.)
OFFICER ROGER GOUDREAU ae
OFFICER EDWARD MOSKAL
Re
Defendants
VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
The estates of Edward Daniel McGrath and Brittany Danielle McGrath, as represented by
Chelsea McGrath and Iris McGrath, respectively, allege upon knowledge, information, and belief
that the negligence of Officers Roger Goudreau and Edward Moskal, in their capacity as
Holyoke Police officers, directly caused the wrongful deaths and violated the civii rights of
Brittany and Edward McGrath.
PARTIES
1 The estates of Edward Daniel McGrath and Brittany Danielie McGrath, as represented
by Chelsea McGrath and iris McGrath. Said plaintiffs are the persons with standing to
bring the action to court. Chelsea McGrath and Iris McGrath are the only living
descendants to the deceased parties.
The City of Holyoke, Massachusetts as the local government agency that employs
Officers Roger Goudreau and Edward Moskal.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
Jurisdiction is proper because all parties are residents of, or incorporated in
Massachusetts, and the amount in controversy exceeds $25,000.
Venue is proper as to defendants pursuant to Mass General Laws c223 subsection 1,
because at least one of the parties resides in Hampshire County.
e e
STATEMENT OF FACTS
This claim arises out of an incident that took place on August 28, 2014 at approximately
1:12 pm. Holyoke Police Officer Roger Goudreau, was flagged down by a motorist to
report that a red Toyota 4 Runner was stopped up on the sidewalk at approximately the
comer of 93 Linden Street and 244 Suffolk Street in Holyoke.
The officer found the red Toyota SUV partially blocking Linden Street with its rear tire
against the curb and hazard lights on. Officer Goudreau observed James Ainsworth in
the passenger seat, leaning back, and eyes closed, drinking an energy drink inside the
1991 Toyota SUV.
The officer approached Ainsworth, and spoke to him through the open window while
simultaneously shaking him.
Ainsworth claimed to be waiting for his girlfriend and stated he fell asleep with the sun
shining on him.
When asked, Ainsworth stated that the vehicle ran out of gas and Ainsworth claimed he
pushed the vehicle to where it was found half blocking the street.
10. Officer Moskal then arrived at the scene and joined Officer Goudreau. Officer Goudreau
asked Ainsworth for his identification, however Ainsworth claimed he did not have
identification.
11. Ainsworth provided Goudreau with his name, social security number and date of
birth. Goudreau ran Ainsworth’s information and learned Ainsworth’s license to operate
a motor vehicle had been revoked
12. Ainsworth claimed that the owner of the vehicle, Jennifer Lee Verville who resided on
Elm Street in Holyoke was the “girlfriend” he was waiting for
13. Further investigation revealed that Christina Dunlap, the girlfriend he was waiting for,
was not the owner of the vehicle.
14. Ainsworth, when told by Officer Goudreau that he couldn't drive, retrieved the keys for
the motor vehicle from the vehicle’s front passenger side door.
15. Officer Goudreau failed to confiscate the keys from Ainsworth. Officer Moskal then
cleared the scene
16. Officer Goudreau remained on the scene for approximately another fifteen minutes At
that point, Mr. Ainsworth stated he would be all set.
17. Officer Goudreau cleared the scene at 1:35:52 pm without taking any further action.
418. He did not perform field sobriety tests, did not impound the motor vehicle, did not take
Ainsworth into custody, did not confiscate the motor vehicle keys, did not contact the
e e
registered owner, and did not wait for the alleged “girlfriend” who was allegedly the
“driver” to return.
19. Ainsworth’s girlfriend, Christina Dunlap, at the time of the stop, August 28, 2014, had a
warrant for her arrest.
20. The motor vehicle Mr. James Ainsworth was in, the Toyota 4 Runner, Massachusetts
registration #4GHC90 had a revoked registration and was registered to Jennifer Lee
Verville.
21. Later that day, August 28, 2014 at approximately 3:10 pm, James Ainsworth was driving
the same 1991 Toyota SUV, south along Route 5 in the Town of Easthampton with
Christina Dunlap as the front passenger.
22. Edward McGrath, Jr. was traveling north on Route 5, on his Kawasaki motorcycle with
his daughter, Brittany McGrath as the back passenger in the Town of Easthampton.
23. At approximately 3:10 pm, James Ainsworth’s SUV invaded the northbound lane and
struck the McGrath’s motorcycle head on.
24. Ainsworth did not apply his brakes at all prior to impacting the motorcycle. Upon impact,
the motorcycle and the SUV traveled together for a short distance before separating on
the paved shoulder of Route 5.
25. Edward McGrath hit the windshield of Ainsworth’s motorcycle and then was run over by
Ainsworth in the SUV.
26. Brittany McGrath was hit by the SUV and fell off the motorcycle.
27. Both Edward and Brittany died at the scene.
28. James Ainsworth appeared to be asleep according to witnesses at the scene.
29. When police arrived at the scene it was reported that Ainsworth appeared to be under
the influence of heroin.
30. Witnesses describe Ainsworth as slurring his speech, unsteady on his feet, and
despondent
31. Ainsworth’s blood was taken at Baystate Medical Center, he was given Narcan, and was
later found to test positive for heroin.
32. Ainsworth was later found to have heroin in the pocket of his pants.
33. Christina Dunlap reported to the police that Ainsworth hid heroin in her purse along with
a straw, and that both she and Ainsworth had begun ingesting drugs, including heroin
and painkillers, from the time they woke up that day.
@ e
34. Officers Goudreau and Moskal, once they stopped and intervened with James
Ainsworth, assumed a duty of care to the general public and the motoring public to
insure the safety and weltbeing of the public.
35. The Officers failed in their duty by failing to investigate, failing to tow the vehicle
Ainsworth had been found in, failing to administer field sobriety tests to Ainsworth, failing
to identify the motor vehicle was not properly registered and failing to insure a licensed
and safe driver was available to operate the vehicle in question.
36. Upon looking up Ainsworth’s record, Officers Goudreau was alerted that Ainsworth had a
criminal history, which included previous instances of driving on a suspended license.
37. They knew or should have known that Ainsworth had a high risk of driving on a
suspended license.
38. Furthermore, these officers knew or should have known that Ainsworth was impaired at
the time of this stop.
39. Ainsworth was exhibiting behavior consistent with opioid use. Officer Goudreau had to
shake Ainsworth awake to alert him of his presence. While Officer Goudreau was
shaking him awake, Ainsworth was holding an energy drink.
40. The officers failed to wait for Christina Dunlap to return to the scene. Had they waited for
her to return, they would have determined that she was not the owner of the vehicle and
had an active warrant out for her arrest.
41.As a direct and proximate cause of Officers Goudreau and Moskal's failure to act, the
claimants were fatally injured.
42. In addition, the civil rights guaranteed to Brittany and Edward McGrath under the laws of
Massachusetts and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights were violated, including,
but not limited to, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent
infliction of emotional distress.
43. Further, the Holyoke Police Department failed to do the following in order to ensure the
safety and protection owed to the general public, specifically Mr. Edward McGrath and
Brittany McGrath, including but not limited to:
a. Failure to properly train its officers;
b. Failure to protect;
c. Failure to promptly and thoroughly investigate reported incidents; and
d. Failure to supervise its police officers.
44. As a direct and proximate result of the illegal acts, omissions and procedures of the City
of Holyoke Police Department and its officers, the City of Holyoke, the Mayor of the City
of Holyoke, and the Police Chief of the Holyoke Police Department, Edward McGrath
4
® e
and Brittany McGrath suffered fatal injuries, which were foreseeable, depriving them of
their lives and liberty.
COUNT ONE:
Negligence That Directly Resulted in Wrongful Death
Violation of M.G.L., Chapter 229, Section 2
45.As a direct and proximate cause of Officer Goudreau and Moskal's negligent failure to
take action, Edward and Brittany McGrath were fatally injured.
46. Other rights that are guaranteed under the laws of Massachusetts and the
Massachusetts Declaration of Rights were violated including but not limited to,
negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional
distress.
47. The Holyoke Police Department failed to ensure the safety and protection owed to the
general public, specifically Edward and Brittany McGrath, including but not limited to:
failure to properly train its officers, failure to protect, failure to promptly and thoroughly
investigate reported incidences, and failure to supervise its police officers.
WHEREFORE, the estates of Mr. Edward McGrath, Jr. and Brittany McGrath demand
Judgment against Officers Goudreau and Moskal and City of Holyoke in the amount of One
Hundred Thousand Dollars per claimant totaling Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) for
violating the Tort Claims Act and an additional sum in the amount of Two Million Dollars
($2,000,000) for violating the above-described civil rights of Mr. and Ms. McGrath outlined in the
above described offenses against them.
COUNT TWO
VIOLATION OF M.G.L., Chapter 258, Section 4
48. As a direct and proximate cause of Officer Goudreau and Moskal’s negligent failure to
take action, Edward and Brittany McGrath were fatally injured in violation of
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 258, Section 4.
49. Other rights that are guaranteed under the laws of Massachusetts and the
Massachusetts Declaration of Rights were violated including but not limited to,
negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional
distress.
50. The Holyoke Police Department failed to ensure the safety and protection owed to the
general public, specifically Edward and Brittany McGrath, including but not limited to:
failure to properly train its officers, failure to protect, failure to promptly and thoroughly
investigate reported incidences, and failure to supervise its police officers.
ne
@
WHEREFORE, the estates of Mr. Edward McGrath, Jr. and Brittany McGrath demand
Judgment against against Officers Goudreau and Moskal and the City of Holyoke in the amount
of One Hundred Thousand Dollars per claimant totaling Two Hundred Thousand Dollars
($200,000) for violating the Tort Claims Act and an additional sum in the amount of Two Million
Dollars ($2,000,000) for violating the above-described civil nights of Mr. and Ms. McGrath
outlined in the above described offenses against them.
COUNT THREE
VIOLATION OF 42 United States Code, Section 1983
51.As a direct and proximate cause of Officer Goudreau and Moskal’s failure to take action,
Edward and Brittany McGrath were fatally injured and deprived of their civil rights and
their right to life in violation of 42 United States Code, Section 1983 and the
Massachusetts Declaration of Rights
52. Other rights that are guaranteed under the laws of Massachusetts and the
Massachusetts Declaration of Rights were violated including but not limited to,
negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional
distress.
53. The Holyoke Police Department failed to ensure the safety and protection owed to the
general public, specifically Edward and Brittany McGrath, including but not limited to:
failure to properly train its officers, failure to protect, failure to promptly and thoroughly
investigate reported incidences, and failure to supervise its police officers.
WHEREFORE, the estates of Mr. Edward McGrath, Jr. and Brittany McGrath demand
Judgment against Officers Goudreau and Moskal and the City of Holyoke in the amount of One
Hundred Thousand Dollars per claimant totaling Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) for
violating the Tort Claims Act and an additional sum in the amount of Two Million Dollars
($2,000,000) for violating the above-described civil rights of Mr. and Ms. McGrath outlined in the
above described offenses against them.
COUNT FOUR
Infliction of Emotional Distress
54.As a direct and proximate cause of Officer Goudreau and Moskal's negligent failure to
take action, Edward and Brittany McGrath were fatally injured and Chelsea McGrath and
\ris McGrath were mentally and emotionally injured, and damaged as the proximate of
the decedents wrongful death, including but not limited to: Plaintiffs loss of familial
relations, decedents comfort, protection, companionship, love, affection, solace and
morai support
55. Other rights that are guaranteed under the laws of Massachusetts and the
Massachusetts Declaration of Rights were violated including but not limited to,
negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional
distress.
Cr
@
56. The Holyoke Police Department failed to ensure the safety and protection owed to the
general public, specifically Edward and Brittany McGrath, including but not limited to:
failure to properly train its officers, failure to protect, failure to promptly and thoroughly
investigate reported incidences, and failure to supervise its police officers.
WHEREFORE, Chelsea McGrath and Iris McGrath demand Judgment against Officers
Goudreau and Moskal and the City of Holyoke in the amount of Two Million Dollars
($2,000,000) for the emotional suffering and distress caused by their actions.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
57.As to Count One, the estates of Mr. Edward McGrath, Jr. and Brittany McGrath demand
Judgment against Officers Goudreau and Moskal and the City of Holyoke in the amount
of One Hundred Thousand Dollars per claimant totaling Two Hundred Thousand Dollars
($200,000) for violating the Tort Claims Act and an additional sum in the amount of Two
Million Dollars ($2,000,000) for violating the above-described civil rights of Mr. and Ms.
McGrath outlined in the above described offenses against them.
58. As to Count Two, the estates of Mr. Edward McGrath, Jr. and Brittany McGrath demand
Judgment against Officers Goudreau and Moskal and the City of Holyoke in the amount
of One Hundred Thousand Dollars per claimant totaling Two Hundred Thousand Dollars
($200,000) for violating the Tort Claims Act and an additional sum in the amount of Two
Million Dollars ($2,000,000) for violating the above-described civil rights of Mr. and Ms.
McGrath outlined in the above described offenses against them.
59. As to Count Three, the estates of Mr. Edward McGrath, Jr. and Brittany McGrath
demand Judgment against Officers Goudreau and Moskal and the City of Holyoke in the
amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars per claimant totaling Two Hundred Thousand
Dollars ($200,000) for violating the Tort Claims Act and an additional sum in the amount
of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) for violating the above-described civil rights of Mr.
and Ms. McGrath outlined in the above described offenses against them.
60. As to Count Four, Chelsea McGrath and Iris McGrath demand Judgment against
Officers Goudreau and Moskal and the City of Holyoke in the amount of Two Million
Dollars ($2,000,000) for the emotional suffering and distress caused by their actions.
JURY DEMAND
The estates of Edward and Brittany McGrath hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues
so trialable.
Respectfully submitted:
Lil MESFO
Crelse
7
@
11 Fruit Street, Apt E, Northampton, MA 01060
Respectfully submitted:
Iris McGrath
25 Raymond Ave, , MA 01040
Preview
e e 47 428 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Hampshire County SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT THE ESTATES OF EDWARD DANIEL AND BRITTANY DANIELLE MCGRATH As represented by: CHELSEA MCGRATH AND IRIS MCGRATH Plaintiffs RAMPSHIR: SuermIOn con IAT Versus Civil Action No. _ 7 THE CITY OF HOLYOKE, MASSACHUSETTS AUG 25 2.) OFFICER ROGER GOUDREAU ae OFFICER EDWARD MOSKAL Re Defendants VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND The estates of Edward Daniel McGrath and Brittany Danielle McGrath, as represented by Chelsea McGrath and Iris McGrath, respectively, allege upon knowledge, information, and belief that the negligence of Officers Roger Goudreau and Edward Moskal, in their capacity as Holyoke Police officers, directly caused the wrongful deaths and violated the civii rights of Brittany and Edward McGrath. PARTIES 1 The estates of Edward Daniel McGrath and Brittany Danielie McGrath, as represented by Chelsea McGrath and iris McGrath. Said plaintiffs are the persons with standing to bring the action to court. Chelsea McGrath and Iris McGrath are the only living descendants to the deceased parties. The City of Holyoke, Massachusetts as the local government agency that employs Officers Roger Goudreau and Edward Moskal. JURISDICTION AND VENUE Jurisdiction is proper because all parties are residents of, or incorporated in Massachusetts, and the amount in controversy exceeds $25,000. Venue is proper as to defendants pursuant to Mass General Laws c223 subsection 1, because at least one of the parties resides in Hampshire County. e e STATEMENT OF FACTS This claim arises out of an incident that took place on August 28, 2014 at approximately 1:12 pm. Holyoke Police Officer Roger Goudreau, was flagged down by a motorist to report that a red Toyota 4 Runner was stopped up on the sidewalk at approximately the comer of 93 Linden Street and 244 Suffolk Street in Holyoke. The officer found the red Toyota SUV partially blocking Linden Street with its rear tire against the curb and hazard lights on. Officer Goudreau observed James Ainsworth in the passenger seat, leaning back, and eyes closed, drinking an energy drink inside the 1991 Toyota SUV. The officer approached Ainsworth, and spoke to him through the open window while simultaneously shaking him. Ainsworth claimed to be waiting for his girlfriend and stated he fell asleep with the sun shining on him. When asked, Ainsworth stated that the vehicle ran out of gas and Ainsworth claimed he pushed the vehicle to where it was found half blocking the street. 10. Officer Moskal then arrived at the scene and joined Officer Goudreau. Officer Goudreau asked Ainsworth for his identification, however Ainsworth claimed he did not have identification. 11. Ainsworth provided Goudreau with his name, social security number and date of birth. Goudreau ran Ainsworth’s information and learned Ainsworth’s license to operate a motor vehicle had been revoked 12. Ainsworth claimed that the owner of the vehicle, Jennifer Lee Verville who resided on Elm Street in Holyoke was the “girlfriend” he was waiting for 13. Further investigation revealed that Christina Dunlap, the girlfriend he was waiting for, was not the owner of the vehicle. 14. Ainsworth, when told by Officer Goudreau that he couldn't drive, retrieved the keys for the motor vehicle from the vehicle’s front passenger side door. 15. Officer Goudreau failed to confiscate the keys from Ainsworth. Officer Moskal then cleared the scene 16. Officer Goudreau remained on the scene for approximately another fifteen minutes At that point, Mr. Ainsworth stated he would be all set. 17. Officer Goudreau cleared the scene at 1:35:52 pm without taking any further action. 418. He did not perform field sobriety tests, did not impound the motor vehicle, did not take Ainsworth into custody, did not confiscate the motor vehicle keys, did not contact the e e registered owner, and did not wait for the alleged “girlfriend” who was allegedly the “driver” to return. 19. Ainsworth’s girlfriend, Christina Dunlap, at the time of the stop, August 28, 2014, had a warrant for her arrest. 20. The motor vehicle Mr. James Ainsworth was in, the Toyota 4 Runner, Massachusetts registration #4GHC90 had a revoked registration and was registered to Jennifer Lee Verville. 21. Later that day, August 28, 2014 at approximately 3:10 pm, James Ainsworth was driving the same 1991 Toyota SUV, south along Route 5 in the Town of Easthampton with Christina Dunlap as the front passenger. 22. Edward McGrath, Jr. was traveling north on Route 5, on his Kawasaki motorcycle with his daughter, Brittany McGrath as the back passenger in the Town of Easthampton. 23. At approximately 3:10 pm, James Ainsworth’s SUV invaded the northbound lane and struck the McGrath’s motorcycle head on. 24. Ainsworth did not apply his brakes at all prior to impacting the motorcycle. Upon impact, the motorcycle and the SUV traveled together for a short distance before separating on the paved shoulder of Route 5. 25. Edward McGrath hit the windshield of Ainsworth’s motorcycle and then was run over by Ainsworth in the SUV. 26. Brittany McGrath was hit by the SUV and fell off the motorcycle. 27. Both Edward and Brittany died at the scene. 28. James Ainsworth appeared to be asleep according to witnesses at the scene. 29. When police arrived at the scene it was reported that Ainsworth appeared to be under the influence of heroin. 30. Witnesses describe Ainsworth as slurring his speech, unsteady on his feet, and despondent 31. Ainsworth’s blood was taken at Baystate Medical Center, he was given Narcan, and was later found to test positive for heroin. 32. Ainsworth was later found to have heroin in the pocket of his pants. 33. Christina Dunlap reported to the police that Ainsworth hid heroin in her purse along with a straw, and that both she and Ainsworth had begun ingesting drugs, including heroin and painkillers, from the time they woke up that day. @ e 34. Officers Goudreau and Moskal, once they stopped and intervened with James Ainsworth, assumed a duty of care to the general public and the motoring public to insure the safety and weltbeing of the public. 35. The Officers failed in their duty by failing to investigate, failing to tow the vehicle Ainsworth had been found in, failing to administer field sobriety tests to Ainsworth, failing to identify the motor vehicle was not properly registered and failing to insure a licensed and safe driver was available to operate the vehicle in question. 36. Upon looking up Ainsworth’s record, Officers Goudreau was alerted that Ainsworth had a criminal history, which included previous instances of driving on a suspended license. 37. They knew or should have known that Ainsworth had a high risk of driving on a suspended license. 38. Furthermore, these officers knew or should have known that Ainsworth was impaired at the time of this stop. 39. Ainsworth was exhibiting behavior consistent with opioid use. Officer Goudreau had to shake Ainsworth awake to alert him of his presence. While Officer Goudreau was shaking him awake, Ainsworth was holding an energy drink. 40. The officers failed to wait for Christina Dunlap to return to the scene. Had they waited for her to return, they would have determined that she was not the owner of the vehicle and had an active warrant out for her arrest. 41.As a direct and proximate cause of Officers Goudreau and Moskal's failure to act, the claimants were fatally injured. 42. In addition, the civil rights guaranteed to Brittany and Edward McGrath under the laws of Massachusetts and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights were violated, including, but not limited to, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress. 43. Further, the Holyoke Police Department failed to do the following in order to ensure the safety and protection owed to the general public, specifically Mr. Edward McGrath and Brittany McGrath, including but not limited to: a. Failure to properly train its officers; b. Failure to protect; c. Failure to promptly and thoroughly investigate reported incidents; and d. Failure to supervise its police officers. 44. As a direct and proximate result of the illegal acts, omissions and procedures of the City of Holyoke Police Department and its officers, the City of Holyoke, the Mayor of the City of Holyoke, and the Police Chief of the Holyoke Police Department, Edward McGrath 4 ® e and Brittany McGrath suffered fatal injuries, which were foreseeable, depriving them of their lives and liberty. COUNT ONE: Negligence That Directly Resulted in Wrongful Death Violation of M.G.L., Chapter 229, Section 2 45.As a direct and proximate cause of Officer Goudreau and Moskal's negligent failure to take action, Edward and Brittany McGrath were fatally injured. 46. Other rights that are guaranteed under the laws of Massachusetts and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights were violated including but not limited to, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress. 47. The Holyoke Police Department failed to ensure the safety and protection owed to the general public, specifically Edward and Brittany McGrath, including but not limited to: failure to properly train its officers, failure to protect, failure to promptly and thoroughly investigate reported incidences, and failure to supervise its police officers. WHEREFORE, the estates of Mr. Edward McGrath, Jr. and Brittany McGrath demand Judgment against Officers Goudreau and Moskal and City of Holyoke in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars per claimant totaling Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) for violating the Tort Claims Act and an additional sum in the amount of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) for violating the above-described civil rights of Mr. and Ms. McGrath outlined in the above described offenses against them. COUNT TWO VIOLATION OF M.G.L., Chapter 258, Section 4 48. As a direct and proximate cause of Officer Goudreau and Moskal’s negligent failure to take action, Edward and Brittany McGrath were fatally injured in violation of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 258, Section 4. 49. Other rights that are guaranteed under the laws of Massachusetts and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights were violated including but not limited to, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress. 50. The Holyoke Police Department failed to ensure the safety and protection owed to the general public, specifically Edward and Brittany McGrath, including but not limited to: failure to properly train its officers, failure to protect, failure to promptly and thoroughly investigate reported incidences, and failure to supervise its police officers. ne @ WHEREFORE, the estates of Mr. Edward McGrath, Jr. and Brittany McGrath demand Judgment against against Officers Goudreau and Moskal and the City of Holyoke in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars per claimant totaling Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) for violating the Tort Claims Act and an additional sum in the amount of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) for violating the above-described civil nights of Mr. and Ms. McGrath outlined in the above described offenses against them. COUNT THREE VIOLATION OF 42 United States Code, Section 1983 51.As a direct and proximate cause of Officer Goudreau and Moskal’s failure to take action, Edward and Brittany McGrath were fatally injured and deprived of their civil rights and their right to life in violation of 42 United States Code, Section 1983 and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights 52. Other rights that are guaranteed under the laws of Massachusetts and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights were violated including but not limited to, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress. 53. The Holyoke Police Department failed to ensure the safety and protection owed to the general public, specifically Edward and Brittany McGrath, including but not limited to: failure to properly train its officers, failure to protect, failure to promptly and thoroughly investigate reported incidences, and failure to supervise its police officers. WHEREFORE, the estates of Mr. Edward McGrath, Jr. and Brittany McGrath demand Judgment against Officers Goudreau and Moskal and the City of Holyoke in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars per claimant totaling Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) for violating the Tort Claims Act and an additional sum in the amount of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) for violating the above-described civil rights of Mr. and Ms. McGrath outlined in the above described offenses against them. COUNT FOUR Infliction of Emotional Distress 54.As a direct and proximate cause of Officer Goudreau and Moskal's negligent failure to take action, Edward and Brittany McGrath were fatally injured and Chelsea McGrath and \ris McGrath were mentally and emotionally injured, and damaged as the proximate of the decedents wrongful death, including but not limited to: Plaintiffs loss of familial relations, decedents comfort, protection, companionship, love, affection, solace and morai support 55. Other rights that are guaranteed under the laws of Massachusetts and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights were violated including but not limited to, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Cr @ 56. The Holyoke Police Department failed to ensure the safety and protection owed to the general public, specifically Edward and Brittany McGrath, including but not limited to: failure to properly train its officers, failure to protect, failure to promptly and thoroughly investigate reported incidences, and failure to supervise its police officers. WHEREFORE, Chelsea McGrath and Iris McGrath demand Judgment against Officers Goudreau and Moskal and the City of Holyoke in the amount of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) for the emotional suffering and distress caused by their actions. REQUEST FOR RELIEF 57.As to Count One, the estates of Mr. Edward McGrath, Jr. and Brittany McGrath demand Judgment against Officers Goudreau and Moskal and the City of Holyoke in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars per claimant totaling Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) for violating the Tort Claims Act and an additional sum in the amount of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) for violating the above-described civil rights of Mr. and Ms. McGrath outlined in the above described offenses against them. 58. As to Count Two, the estates of Mr. Edward McGrath, Jr. and Brittany McGrath demand Judgment against Officers Goudreau and Moskal and the City of Holyoke in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars per claimant totaling Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) for violating the Tort Claims Act and an additional sum in the amount of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) for violating the above-described civil rights of Mr. and Ms. McGrath outlined in the above described offenses against them. 59. As to Count Three, the estates of Mr. Edward McGrath, Jr. and Brittany McGrath demand Judgment against Officers Goudreau and Moskal and the City of Holyoke in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars per claimant totaling Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) for violating the Tort Claims Act and an additional sum in the amount of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) for violating the above-described civil rights of Mr. and Ms. McGrath outlined in the above described offenses against them. 60. As to Count Four, Chelsea McGrath and Iris McGrath demand Judgment against Officers Goudreau and Moskal and the City of Holyoke in the amount of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) for the emotional suffering and distress caused by their actions. JURY DEMAND The estates of Edward and Brittany McGrath hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues so trialable. Respectfully submitted: Lil MESFO Crelse 7 @ 11 Fruit Street, Apt E, Northampton, MA 01060 Respectfully submitted: Iris McGrath 25 Raymond Ave, , MA 01040