Comeau v. Town of Webster, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102539

Background

Plaintiffs Comeau Trucking, High Roller, and R. Comeau sue the Town of Webster, its officials, and Purcell for 18 counts arising from a Route 395 seafood condemnation after a July 27, 2008 lobster transport crash.
Purcell, Board of Health agent, condemned the seafood four hours after the crash despite lacking seafood-handling training or inspectional expertise.
Plaintiffs allege Webster knew of the marathon and public-safety risks but failed to warn motorists or properly manage traffic and inspections.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages for alleged negligence, improper inspections, and civil-rights violations related to the condemnation.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and for presentment defenses under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, ch. 258, §§ 1-10.
Court conducts presentment analysis, then Rule 12(b)(6) analysis to determine which counts survive.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether presentment under ch. 258, §4 was satisfied	Plaintiffs allege timely, detailed presentment to Defendants.	Defendants argue lack of proper presentment under §4.	Presentment satisfied; affidavit timely addresses presentment, moot point
Whether municipal negligence counts survive the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act	Webster and departments negligently caused harm during marathon-related incidents.	Discretionary-function and immunity provisions shield actions; some counts survive as to non-immune entities.	Counts I (negligence against Webster) and VI (second) survive in part; Count II dismissed; Counts against specific departments largely dismissed
Whether § 10(b), § 10(f), and public-duty immunity bar Counts against Webster	Immunity defenses do not apply given record and lack of policy-level discretion shown so far.	Discretionary-function and inspection-immunity apply; broad immunity may bar claims.	Not warranted to dismiss at this stage; Counts I and VI (second) not barred; other immunity theories reserved for record development
Whether Count III § 85, 2 (traffic/road safety) applies to municipalities	Webster had a duty to maintain and control traffic under § 85, 2.	§ 85, 2 governs the Commonwealth, not municipalities; Chapter 84 provides municipal remedies.	Count III dismissed; municipal duty governed by Chapter 84, §15; amendment, if any, may be allowed
Whether § 1983 claims against the Board of Health and Purcell survive	Board of Health policies and Purcell’s actions violated rights under color of state law.	Claims fail for lack of policy, causation, and qualified-immunity defenses; municipal liability requires a policy and causal link.	Count VII (Board of Health) dismissed; Count X against Purcell denied on qualified-immunity analysis; remaining development needed for factual record

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must show plausible entitlement to relief, not mere conclusions)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard; reject merely conclusory allegations)
Gagliardi v. Sullivan, 513 F.3d 301 (1st Cir. 2008) (standard for plausible claims in the First Circuit)
City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (U.S. 1989) (monell-like municipal liability requirements and policy link)
Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (local government must have a policy or custom to incur liability)
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (U.S. 1987) (qualified immunity evaluation requires clearly established rights)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (two-step qualified-immunity analysis; may address prongs flexibly)
Whitney v. Worcester, 373 Mass. 208 (Mass. 1977) (discretionary-function immunity framework in Massachusetts context)
Horta v. Sullivan, 418 Mass. 615 (Mass. 1994) (limits of discretionary immunity for planning/policy decisions)
Schenker v. Binns, 18 Mass.App.Ct. 404 (Mass. App. Ct. 1984) (MA Tort Claims Act presentment and immunity concepts)