GINA M. FERRINI, as Personal Representative of the Estate of PETER F. MONSINI v. HYM INVESTMENT, GROUP, LLC, BULFINCH UNIT a OWNER, LLC, GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL, INC., And

Plain English (For Everyone)

A woman sued companies after her husband died when a retaining wall collapsed. The court said two companies were not responsible because there wasn't enough evidence they did anything wrong. However, the court allowed the case to continue against a third company, an environmental consultant, because there might be evidence they were negligent in inspecting the wall. This means the case against the consultant will go forward.

For Legal Practitioners

The First Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants Hym Investment Group and Bulfinch Unit a Owner, finding no evidence of breach of duty or causation. However, it reversed summary judgment for GZA Geoenvironmental, Inc., holding that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding GZA's duty and breach in its inspection and recommendation of repairs for the retaining wall, thus allowing the negligence and wrongful death claims against GZA to proceed.

For Law Students

This case illustrates the application of summary judgment standards in negligence actions. The court de novo reviewed the grant of summary judgment, distinguishing between defendants for whom no evidence of breach or causation existed (Hym, Bulfinch) and a defendant (GZA) where expert testimony and inspection reports raised genuine issues of material fact regarding duty and breach, thus precluding summary judgment.

Newsroom Summary

A Massachusetts appeals court allowed a wrongful death lawsuit to proceed against an environmental consulting firm, GZA Geoenvironmental, Inc., following the collapse of a retaining wall that killed Peter F. Monsini. The court found enough evidence of potential negligence by GZA to warrant a trial, while upholding the dismissal of claims against the property owners, Hym Investment Group and Bulfinch Unit a Owner.

Standard of Review

De novo review was applied to the grant of summary judgment, meaning the appellate court reviewed the lower court's decision without deference to its legal conclusions.

Procedural Posture

The case reached the appellate court after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants Hym Investment Group, LLC, and Bulfinch Unit a Owner, LLC, dismissing the plaintiff's claims against them. The plaintiff appealed this decision.

Burden of Proof

The plaintiff, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Peter F. Monsini, bore the burden of proving negligence. The standard required showing that the defendants breached a duty of care, and that this breach caused Mr. Monsini's death. Summary judgment is granted if there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Legal Tests Applied

Statutory References

Key Legal Definitions

Rule Statements

"Summary judgment is appropriate when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."

"To establish a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, that the defendant breached that duty, and that the plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the breach."

"A party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law."

"In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we consider the evidence presented by the parties in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party."

Remedies

The dismissal of claims against Hym Investment Group, LLC, and Bulfinch Unit a Owner, LLC, was affirmed.The dismissal of claims against GZA Geoenvironmental, Inc., was reversed, allowing the plaintiff's claims against this defendant to proceed to trial.

Scenario: You hire a contractor to inspect a retaining wall on your property. The contractor provides a report but doesn't recommend immediate repairs. Later, the wall collapses, causing damage. You want to sue the contractor.

Your Rights: You have the right to sue for negligence if you can prove the contractor had a duty of care, breached that duty by failing to identify a clear danger or recommend necessary repairs, and that this failure caused your damages.

What To Do: Gather all documentation, including the inspection report and any communication with the contractor. Consult with an attorney specializing in construction defect or personal injury law to assess the strength of your claim and the contractor's potential liability.

Scenario: A retaining wall on your commercial property collapses, causing injury. You are a property owner, not directly involved in the wall's construction or maintenance, but are sued.

Your Rights: Your rights depend on whether you had a duty to maintain the wall and whether you breached that duty. If you can show you took reasonable steps or had no control/knowledge of defects, you may be able to have claims against you dismissed, especially if the plaintiff cannot prove your specific actions or inactions caused the harm.

What To Do: Immediately consult with legal counsel. Preserve all maintenance records and any inspection reports. Work with your attorney to demonstrate your lack of negligence or duty, potentially leading to dismissal of claims against you.

Is it legal to sue a company for negligence after a structural collapse?

Yes, it is legal to sue a company for negligence if you can prove they had a duty of care, breached that duty, and their breach directly caused damages or injury. The success of the lawsuit depends on the evidence presented.

This applies in jurisdictions that recognize negligence claims, such as Massachusetts, where this case was decided.

Can I sue my landlord if a retaining wall on their property collapses and causes damage?

Depends. You can sue if you can prove the landlord had a duty to maintain the wall, knew or should have known about a dangerous condition, failed to take reasonable steps to repair it, and this failure caused your damage. Landlord-tenant laws and lease agreements may define these duties.

Laws vary by state and local jurisdiction regarding landlord responsibilities for property maintenance and safety.

For Property Owners (Commercial/Residential)

Property owners may face increased scrutiny regarding the maintenance and inspection of structures like retaining walls. They need to ensure they have adequate inspection protocols and address any identified issues promptly to mitigate liability risk.

For Environmental and Engineering Consultants

Consultants performing inspections and providing recommendations for structural integrity face potential liability if their work is found to be negligent. This ruling emphasizes the importance of thoroughness and accuracy in their assessments and reports.

For Victims of Property-Related Accidents

Individuals injured or whose property is damaged due to structural failures may have a clearer path to pursue claims against parties responsible for inspection and maintenance, particularly if negligence can be demonstrated.

Q: What is GINA M. FERRINI, as Personal Representative of the Estate of PETER F. MONSINI v. HYM INVESTMENT, GROUP, LLC, BULFINCH UNIT a OWNER, LLC, GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL, INC., And about?

GINA M. FERRINI, as Personal Representative of the Estate of PETER F. MONSINI v. HYM INVESTMENT, GROUP, LLC, BULFINCH UNIT a OWNER, LLC, GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL, INC., And is a case decided by Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on March 27, 2025.

Q: What court decided GINA M. FERRINI, as Personal Representative of the Estate of PETER F. MONSINI v. HYM INVESTMENT, GROUP, LLC, BULFINCH UNIT a OWNER, LLC, GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL, INC., And?

GINA M. FERRINI, as Personal Representative of the Estate of PETER F. MONSINI v. HYM INVESTMENT, GROUP, LLC, BULFINCH UNIT a OWNER, LLC, GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL, INC., And was decided by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which is part of the MA state court system. This is a state supreme court.

Q: When was GINA M. FERRINI, as Personal Representative of the Estate of PETER F. MONSINI v. HYM INVESTMENT, GROUP, LLC, BULFINCH UNIT a OWNER, LLC, GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL, INC., And decided?

GINA M. FERRINI, as Personal Representative of the Estate of PETER F. MONSINI v. HYM INVESTMENT, GROUP, LLC, BULFINCH UNIT a OWNER, LLC, GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL, INC., And was decided on March 27, 2025.

Q: Who were the judges in GINA M. FERRINI, as Personal Representative of the Estate of PETER F. MONSINI v. HYM INVESTMENT, GROUP, LLC, BULFINCH UNIT a OWNER, LLC, GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL, INC., And?

The judge in GINA M. FERRINI, as Personal Representative of the Estate of PETER F. MONSINI v. HYM INVESTMENT, GROUP, LLC, BULFINCH UNIT a OWNER, LLC, GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL, INC., And: Robert B. Gordon.

Q: What is the citation for GINA M. FERRINI, as Personal Representative of the Estate of PETER F. MONSINI v. HYM INVESTMENT, GROUP, LLC, BULFINCH UNIT a OWNER, LLC, GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL, INC., And?

The citation for GINA M. FERRINI, as Personal Representative of the Estate of PETER F. MONSINI v. HYM INVESTMENT, GROUP, LLC, BULFINCH UNIT a OWNER, LLC, GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL, INC., And is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.

Q: What was the main issue in the Ferrini v. Hym Investment Group case?

The main issue was whether the defendants breached their duty of care in maintaining a retaining wall, and if that breach caused the death of Peter F. Monsini. The court reviewed whether summary judgment was appropriate for the defendants.

Q: Who were the parties involved in the lawsuit?

The plaintiff was Gina M. Ferrini, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Peter F. Monsini. The defendants included Hym Investment Group, LLC, Bulfinch Unit a Owner, LLC, and GZA Geoenvironmental, Inc.

Q: What is a 'retaining wall' in this context?

A retaining wall is a structure designed to hold back soil or rock. In this case, the collapse of such a wall led to the wrongful death claim.

Q: What does 'Personal Representative of the Estate' mean?

This is the person legally appointed to manage the assets and liabilities of someone who has died. They have the authority to file lawsuits on behalf of the deceased's estate.

Q: Is GINA M. FERRINI, as Personal Representative of the Estate of PETER F. MONSINI v. HYM INVESTMENT, GROUP, LLC, BULFINCH UNIT a OWNER, LLC, GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL, INC., And published?

GINA M. FERRINI, as Personal Representative of the Estate of PETER F. MONSINI v. HYM INVESTMENT, GROUP, LLC, BULFINCH UNIT a OWNER, LLC, GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL, INC., And is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.

Q: What was the ruling in GINA M. FERRINI, as Personal Representative of the Estate of PETER F. MONSINI v. HYM INVESTMENT, GROUP, LLC, BULFINCH UNIT a OWNER, LLC, GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL, INC., And?

The court issued a mixed ruling in GINA M. FERRINI, as Personal Representative of the Estate of PETER F. MONSINI v. HYM INVESTMENT, GROUP, LLC, BULFINCH UNIT a OWNER, LLC, GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL, INC., And. Key holdings: The court held that Hym Investment Group, LLC and Bulfinch Unit a Owner, LLC were entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a breach of duty or causation regarding the retaining wall's collapse.; The court held that GZA Geoenvironmental, Inc. was not entitled to summary judgment on the negligence claims, as there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether GZA's actions or omissions in inspecting and reporting on the retaining wall fell below the standard of care.; The court held that the plaintiff's expert testimony regarding the cause of the retaining wall's collapse and GZA's alleged negligence was admissible, as it met the Daubert standard for reliability and relevance.; The court held that the plaintiff's wrongful death claim against GZA could proceed, as it was based on the same alleged negligent conduct as the survival action and was supported by sufficient evidence.; The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the claims against GZA on summary judgment, as the evidence presented raised genuine issues of material fact requiring a trial..

Q: What precedent does GINA M. FERRINI, as Personal Representative of the Estate of PETER F. MONSINI v. HYM INVESTMENT, GROUP, LLC, BULFINCH UNIT a OWNER, LLC, GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL, INC., And set?

GINA M. FERRINI, as Personal Representative of the Estate of PETER F. MONSINI v. HYM INVESTMENT, GROUP, LLC, BULFINCH UNIT a OWNER, LLC, GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL, INC., And established the following key holdings: (1) The court held that Hym Investment Group, LLC and Bulfinch Unit a Owner, LLC were entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a breach of duty or causation regarding the retaining wall's collapse. (2) The court held that GZA Geoenvironmental, Inc. was not entitled to summary judgment on the negligence claims, as there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether GZA's actions or omissions in inspecting and reporting on the retaining wall fell below the standard of care. (3) The court held that the plaintiff's expert testimony regarding the cause of the retaining wall's collapse and GZA's alleged negligence was admissible, as it met the Daubert standard for reliability and relevance. (4) The court held that the plaintiff's wrongful death claim against GZA could proceed, as it was based on the same alleged negligent conduct as the survival action and was supported by sufficient evidence. (5) The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the claims against GZA on summary judgment, as the evidence presented raised genuine issues of material fact requiring a trial.

Q: What are the key holdings in GINA M. FERRINI, as Personal Representative of the Estate of PETER F. MONSINI v. HYM INVESTMENT, GROUP, LLC, BULFINCH UNIT a OWNER, LLC, GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL, INC., And?

1. The court held that Hym Investment Group, LLC and Bulfinch Unit a Owner, LLC were entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a breach of duty or causation regarding the retaining wall's collapse. 2. The court held that GZA Geoenvironmental, Inc. was not entitled to summary judgment on the negligence claims, as there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether GZA's actions or omissions in inspecting and reporting on the retaining wall fell below the standard of care. 3. The court held that the plaintiff's expert testimony regarding the cause of the retaining wall's collapse and GZA's alleged negligence was admissible, as it met the Daubert standard for reliability and relevance. 4. The court held that the plaintiff's wrongful death claim against GZA could proceed, as it was based on the same alleged negligent conduct as the survival action and was supported by sufficient evidence. 5. The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the claims against GZA on summary judgment, as the evidence presented raised genuine issues of material fact requiring a trial.

Q: What cases are related to GINA M. FERRINI, as Personal Representative of the Estate of PETER F. MONSINI v. HYM INVESTMENT, GROUP, LLC, BULFINCH UNIT a OWNER, LLC, GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL, INC., And?

Precedent cases cited or related to GINA M. FERRINI, as Personal Representative of the Estate of PETER F. MONSINI v. HYM INVESTMENT, GROUP, LLC, BULFINCH UNIT a OWNER, LLC, GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL, INC., And: Alves v. DaSilva, 480 Mass. 1014 (2018); Klein v. Boston Edison Co., 475 Mass. 443 (2016); Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 419 Mass. 15 (1994); Kelly v. D.D. & D. Auto Body, Inc., 46 Mass. App. Ct. 331 (1999).

Q: What legal test did the court apply to determine negligence?

The court applied the standard test for negligence: duty of care, breach of that duty, causation, and damages. They examined if the defendants' actions or inactions met this standard.

Q: Why were the claims against Hym Investment Group and Bulfinch Unit a Owner dismissed?

The court affirmed the dismissal because the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence showing that these defendants breached any duty of care owed to Mr. Monsini or that their actions caused his death.

Q: Why were the claims against GZA Geoenvironmental, Inc. allowed to proceed?

The court reversed the dismissal for GZA because the plaintiff provided enough evidence to raise a genuine dispute about whether GZA breached its duty of care in inspecting the retaining wall and recommending repairs.

Q: What specific role did GZA Geoenvironmental, Inc. play?

GZA Geoenvironmental, Inc. was an engineering consultant hired to inspect the retaining wall and provide recommendations. The plaintiff alleged negligence in their inspection and advice.

Q: What is 'causation' in a negligence case?

Causation means proving that the defendant's breach of duty directly led to the plaintiff's injury or damages. It requires showing both 'cause in fact' and 'proximate cause'.

Q: What does it mean for a fact to be a 'genuine issue of material fact'?

It means there is a real disagreement about a fact that is important to the outcome of the case, and this disagreement cannot be resolved without a trial.

Q: What is the difference between 'cause in fact' and 'proximate cause'?

'Cause in fact' is whether the injury would have occurred 'but for' the defendant's actions. 'Proximate cause' is whether the injury was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's actions.

Q: Can a company be liable even if they didn't directly own the property?

Yes, a company can be liable if they undertook a duty of care, such as inspecting or maintaining a structure, and their negligent performance of that duty caused harm, regardless of property ownership.

Q: What should a property owner do if they have a retaining wall?

Property owners should ensure regular inspections of retaining walls by qualified professionals and promptly address any recommended repairs to avoid potential liability if the wall fails.

Q: What should someone do if they are injured due to a structural failure like a wall collapse?

Seek immediate medical attention, preserve any evidence of the failure and its cause, and consult with a personal injury attorney as soon as possible to understand your legal options.

Q: How does this ruling affect engineering consultants?

It highlights that engineering and environmental consultants can be held liable for negligence if their inspections or recommendations are deficient and lead to harm. Thoroughness and accuracy are critical.

Q: What is the statute of limitations for filing a wrongful death lawsuit?

The statute of limitations varies by jurisdiction. In Massachusetts, for personal injury and wrongful death claims, it is typically three years from the date of the injury or death, but specific circumstances can affect this.

Q: What is the historical context of negligence law?

Negligence law evolved from common law principles, with landmark cases like Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) establishing the 'neighbor principle' and expanding the concept of duty of care beyond contractual relationships.

Q: Are there specific regulations for retaining wall construction and maintenance?

Yes, building codes and regulations at federal, state, and local levels often dictate standards for the design, construction, and maintenance of retaining walls to ensure public safety.

Q: What was the docket number in GINA M. FERRINI, as Personal Representative of the Estate of PETER F. MONSINI v. HYM INVESTMENT, GROUP, LLC, BULFINCH UNIT a OWNER, LLC, GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL, INC., And?

The docket number for GINA M. FERRINI, as Personal Representative of the Estate of PETER F. MONSINI v. HYM INVESTMENT, GROUP, LLC, BULFINCH UNIT a OWNER, LLC, GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL, INC., And is 2284CV01656-C. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.

Q: Can GINA M. FERRINI, as Personal Representative of the Estate of PETER F. MONSINI v. HYM INVESTMENT, GROUP, LLC, BULFINCH UNIT a OWNER, LLC, GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL, INC., And be appealed?

Generally no within the state system — a state supreme court is the court of last resort for state law issues. However, if a federal constitutional question is involved, a party may petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review.

Q: What is 'summary judgment' and why was it granted in the trial court?

Summary judgment is a way to end a case early if there are no significant factual disputes and one side is legally entitled to win. The trial court granted it for Hym and Bulfinch, finding no evidence of their negligence.

Q: What is the 'standard of review' used by the appellate court?

The appellate court used 'de novo' review, meaning they looked at the case fresh, without giving deference to the trial court's legal decisions on summary judgment.