Mark F. Itzkowitz

Mark F. Itzkowitz

Attorney Profile

Top Rated Personal Injury Attorney in Boston, MA

Mark F. Itzkowitz, Esquire
 | 175 Federal Street, Suite 1425
Boston, MA 02110-2287
Phone: 617-695-1848
Fax: 617-517-3813
Selected To Super Lawyers: 2007, 2010 - 2021
Licensed Since: 1983
Practice Areas:
  • Personal Injury - General: Plaintiff (80%),
  • Civil Rights (10%),
  • Employment Litigation: Plaintiff (10%)
  • Free Consultation
Attorney Profile

Mark F. Itzkowitz is a highly experienced and well respected trial attorney who protects the legal and Constitutional rights of Massachusetts residents in civil litigation, particularly in cases involving victims’ rights, sexual assault/rape, wrongful death, discrimination and civil rights violations.  He is known for seeking novel solutions to difficult and unresolved issues.  Mark has often successfully pursued untested approaches and has tried variations of approaches that have not been previously successful.

About Mark Itzkowitz

Admitted: 1983, Massachusetts

Professional Webpage: http://www.itzkowitzlaw.com/attorney-profile.html

Scholarly Lectures/Writings:

  • Book chapter authored and updated., Author, Lead Poisoning Liability: The Plaintiff's Perspective in Massachusetts Premises Liability , Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education (MCLE, Inc.), 2004
  • Book chapter authored and updated., Author, Tort Issues in Residential and Commercial Tenancies in Residential and Commercial Landlord-Tenant Practice in Massachusetts (3d ed.), Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education (MCLE, Inc.), 2020
  • Book chapter authored., Author, Lead Paint Litigation From the Plaintiff's Perspective in Comprehensive Premises Liability , Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education (MCLE, Inc.), 1996
  • Co-author of article in 2 MATA Journal 22., Co-author, "Crimes of Violence and Civil Liability: The Negligent Security Case," A Survey of Massachusetts Law , Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys
  • Co-Author with Rabbi Loel Weiss, Unholy Waters: How a Massachusetts Synagogue Found its Way to Shore after a Sex Abuse Scandal, a Prosecution, and a Lawsuit-As Narrated by the Synagogue's Rabbi and its Legal Counsel (chapter) in Amy Neustein (ed.), Tempest in the Temple: Jewish Communit, Brandeis University Press, 2009
  • Book chapter authored and updated., Author - Book Chapter, Lead Paint: Complying with Massachusetts Law in Residential and Commercial Landlord-Tenant Practice in Massachusetts (3d ed. 2016), 2020

Verdicts/Settlements:

  • ROSANNE SLINEY vs. DOMENIC A. PREVITE, JR. Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld constitutionality of retroactive extension of child sex abuse statute of limitations and reversed dismissal of incest case., 2015
  • Civil rights settlement enabled family of domestic violence victims to recover damages from municipal police who refused to enforce domestic violence laws against abusing spouse/father. Analyzed in: Dianne Williamson, Victims Fight Abuse and System, WORCESTER TELEGRAM & GAZETTE (January 6, 2002) and 17 New England Jury Verdict Review & Analysis 10 (March 2002).
  • Genereux v. Columbia Sussex Corporation, U.S. Dist. Ct. D. Mass. No. 05-CV-10879-JLT - $1.1 Million settlement on the eve of trial in Boston on behalf of Mass. woman raped at Cayman Islands resort at which she had not been guest.  LAWYERS WEEKLY TRIAL REPORT TYPE OF ACTION: Tort: Negligent SecurityTYPE OF INJURIES:  Rape; emotional and physical injuries; lost earning capacity COURT AND CASE #: WithheldJUDGE OR JURY:  JuryNAME OF JUDGE:  WithheldSPECIAL DAMAGES:   DAMAGES AWARDED OR SETTLED: SettledAMOUNT: One Million, One Hundred Thousand ($1,100,000.00) DollarsATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF: Mark F. ItzkowitzATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANTS: WithheldNAME/CITY OF MOSTHELPFUL EXPERTS: Robert McCrie (Security), New York City; Eleanor Egan (Psychotherapist), Watertown; Norman Hursh (Vocational Expert), Boston; Alan Feldman (Economist), ProvidenceNAME OF CASE: Withheld INSURANCE CARRIER: Withheld HIGHEST OFFER: $1,100,000.00 OTHER USEFUL INFORMATION: The plaintiff was a 48 year old female Massachusetts resident who was raped in the women's restroom of an outlying spa building of a luxury resort on Seven Mile Beach, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, a British overseas dependency, at approximately 11:30 p.m. on May 3, 2002, by an unidentified assailant. The plaintiff was not a guest of the resort but was staying at a different lodging during a visit to the Caymans. During a late night walk back to her lodging, an unknown man in a van twice stopped and offered her a ride, which she declined. Upon seeing what she believed to be the same van approaching a third time, she became concerned and cut across the resort property in an effort to take a different path back to her lodging. After believing herself safe, she stopped to use a public restroom in the spa building.The spa building was not attached to the main hotel. The spa was closed at the time the plaintiff entered. The women's restroom was at the end of a long corridor, adjacent to a men's restroom. There was no lock on the door. There were no security staff or security devices to monitor the building or the restrooms. While the plaintiff was in a restroom stall, an unknown man entered, shut the light, punched his way through a louvered wooden stall door, entered the stall and violently raped the plaintiff at knife point. After the assault, the plaintiff entered the main hotel building to report the rape to security. No hotel staff was present at the front desk. She reported the rape to a female bartender and asked the employee to call security and/or the police. The bartender told the plaintiff that there was no hotel security staff and that she was not permitted to call the police. Instead, she called a manager, who also refused to call the police until the plaintiff escorted him back to view the crime scene. Inside the restroom, which was littered with the broken stall door and the plaintiff's possessions, the manager asked the plaintiff if she "was sure" that she had been raped. He then returned her to the main hotel building and kept her waiting alone, without so much as a chair or a glass of water, until he finally got around to calling the Royal Cayman Island Police. The RCIP never identified the assailant. The plaintiff had been a successful architect but was emotionally distraught as a result of the rape, has been hospitalized in-patient, and has remained in out-patient psychotherapy ever since, was unable to perform her employment functions, and was terminated from her employment of 18 years. She has been receiving Social Security Disability since the rape. She recently has been diagnosed with an internal physical injury caused by the rape. The resort is operated locally by a Cayman Islands corporation which was not subject to jurisdiction in the United States. However, the resort is a well recognized U.S. based international hotel brand, owned by one of the world's largest corporate owners of hotels and resorts, which also is a U.S. corporation. The Cayman Islands corporation is affiliated with a different U.S. corporation which owns approximately 80 hotels and resorts of various brands in the U.S. and internationally. None of three U.S. corporate defendants (brand, brand owner, and affiliated resort owner) are domiciled in Massachusetts but all own several hotels in this Commonwealth. The plaintiff was unable to bring suit in the Cayman Islands because Caymanian law prohibits contingent fee agreements and she could not have financed the civil litigation. Accordingly, suit was commenced only against the corporation which owned the hotel brand, the hotel brand corporation, and the U.S. affiliate of the Caymanian corporation, but not against the Caymanian corporation which operated the hotel. The plaintiff alleged that the three U.S. corporations exercised control over security and other hotel operations at the Cayman Islands resort, and were liable both for their direct negligence in promulgating and enforcing security requirements at the resort and vicariously for the negligent security practices of the Cayman Islands corporation. The defendants denied control of resort security. The standard of care was governed by Cayman Islands law. There is no Cayman Islands law directly on point. Accordingly, Caymanian law looks to precedent throughout the common law world. Decisions cited in the parties' summary judgment materials and jury instructions included decisions from the United Kingdom (primarily England and Scotland), Canada and Canadian provinces, Australia, the British Virgin Islands, and various U.S. jurisdictions (including Massachusetts, New York, Kentucky, and Delaware), which also are considered legitimate sources of common law precedent in the U.K. and the Cayman Islands. Although phrased differently, the standards of negligence and premises liability are similar to those of Massachusetts. Analysis of those elements of negligence which would fall under the rubric of "duty of care" and "proximate cause" in the U.S. was complicated by the extraordinary secrecy afforded both public and private records in the Cayman Islands. As to private records, the parties were unable throughout the litigation to obtain copies of the RCIP reports of the rape and even of the plaintiff's hospital records. As to "public" records, the Cayman Islands maintains a reputation as one of the world's safest places in part by refusing to disclose crime information, even to Interpol, and by obfuscating that information which it does make available so as to minimize the level of serious crime. However, even from the very limited information available from various records and contemporaneous newspaper articles, the plaintiff's security expert witness, Dr. Robert McCrie, was able to conclude that crime in the Cayman Islands had increased exponentially in the three years before the plaintiff's rape; that sexual offenses had more than doubled between 2000 and 2001 and were not reported in 2002; that RCIP clearance rates were dramatically lower for sex offenses than for other crimes; and that the RCIP had attempted to address the problem by dramatically increasing the size of its force. The defendants acknowledged that before the rape of the plaintiff, two teenage U.S. citizens had been sexually assaulted at the resort. Indeed, the Secretary- Treasurer of the U.S. corporate defendant which was affiliated with the Caymanian corporation testified that of the approximately 80 hotels owned and/or operated by that defendant, he only could recall sexual assaults at this Caymanian resort. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants breached the standard of care in a variety of ways. None of the defendant U.S. corporations had a specialized security department or staff which were primarily responsible for designing, reviewing and/or enforcing security measures at hotels owned and/or operated by the corporate defendants. None had consultants or experts available to advise local franchisees on security measures. There are no hotel brand standards governing the use of security devices at the defendants' hotels, such as security guards or personnel, alarms, panic buttons, or closed circuit television systems, although there are standards governing such minutiae as the direction in which the seams on lamps in the lobbies of the defendants' hotels must face, the number of times a franchised hotel employee must use a guest's name in conversation, and the number, type and location of shampoos to be left for guests in the defendants' hotel bathrooms. None of the defendants provided security training for hotel employees. None of the defendants ever reviewed crime levels in the area of their hotel franchises. None even took measures to ensure that franchised hotels were providing any security at all. No franchise ever was terminated for failing to take security measures, although franchises were terminated for other reasons. Moreover, the plaintiff alleged that the resort where she was raped violated principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design and created an attractive nuisance for criminals by isolating and obscuring the spa restroom, by blocking lines of sight to the restroom, by omitting crime deterrent construction and security devices, including even a lock on the restroom door, and by placing unlockable male and female restroom doors so close as to facilitate "accidental" entry of males into female restrooms. The defendants contended, inter alia, that they did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff because they did not own, operate or control the resort, and because the plaintiff had no relationship to the resort. Alternatively, the defendants contended that any duty owed was only the limited duty of care owed a trespasser. The defendants denied that the courts of the Cayman Islands would impose a duty of care to prevent criminal activity by third persons, especially in the circumstances of the case at bar. The defendants contended that Dr. McCrie's opinions lacked sufficient foundation evidence to enable him to testify. Finally, the defendants contended that the security provided by the resort was greater than that asserted by the plaintiff. The case settled for $1.1 Million after the Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, denied the defendants' motions in limine to preclude Dr. McCrie's testimony and that of a damage expert witness, and granted the plaintiff's motion in limine to preclude certain defense testimony relating to alleged security measures at the resort which the defendants had not disclosed in discovery. The trial judge's assistance was invaluable in helping the parties achieve settlement., 2008
  • Lowell jury awards record $2.25 million in concussion suit.  http://www.itzkowitzlaw.net/Cases/farrell_article_2011.pdf 
  • $3 Million mediated settlement for the family of a 69-year-old man who was beaten to death by his neighbor in an unprovoked attack. http://www.itzkowitzlaw.net/Cases/MLW-Reprint-SettlementReport.pdf , 2019
  • Reported Cases: U.S. v. Cadavid, 192 F.3d 230 (1st Cir., 1999); Galvao v. Gillette Co., 121 F.3d 695 (1st Cir., 1997) (Table); U.S. v. Rose, 104 F.3d 1408 (1st Cir., 1997); U.S. v. Olude, 70 F.3d 110 (1st Cir. 1995) (Table); West v. Sears, Roebuck, 780 F.2d 169 (1st Cir., 1984); Sliney v. Previte, 473 Mass. 283 (2015); Roe No. 1 v. Children's Hospital Medical Center, 469 Mass. 710 (2014); Fuller v. First Financial Insurance Company, 448 Mass. 1 (2006); Bagley v. Monticello Insurance Company, 430 Mass. 454 (1999); Johnson v. Summers, 411 Mass. 82 (1991) cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1166 (1992); Markee v. Biasetti, 410 Mass. 785 (1991); Narine v. Powers, 400 Mass. 343 (1987); Ryan v. City of Malden, 91 Mass. App. Ct. 1132 (2017)(Table); Walsh v. Comprehensive Addiction Programs, Inc., 72 Mass. App. Ct. 1112 (2008)(Table), further app. rev. denied, 452 Mass. 1106 (2008); Clough v. Brown, 59 Mass. App. Ct. 405 (2003); Sheffield v. City of Boston, 319 F.R.D. 52 (D.Mass. 2016); Harrington v. Attleboro, 172 F.Supp. 3d 337 (D. Mass. 2016); Genereux v. Columbia Sussex Corp., 2008 WL 6605539 (D.Mass., April 10, 2008)(Rulings on Motions in Limine); In re: Pettey, 288 B.R. 14 (Bkrcy. D. Mass. 2003); Pettey v. Belanger, 232 B.R. 543 (Bkrcy. D. Mass. 1999); Farrell v. Devenis, 39 M.L.W. 1 (June 6, 2011)("Lowell Jury Awards Record $2.25M in Concussion Suit"); Parsons ex rel. Parsons v. Town of Tewksbury, 26 Mass.L.Rptr. 555 (Middlesex Mass.Super.Ct. January 19, 2010)(Order on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss); Leone v. Silverman, 2004 WL 2567951 (Mass.Land Ct. November 12, 2004); Soriano v. City of Lawrence Police Dept., 12 Mass.L.Rptr. 565 (Essex Mass.Super.Ct. October 23, 2000)(Order Denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment); McClure v. Town of East Brookfield, 1999 WL 1323628 (Worcester Mass.Super.Ct. March 11, 1999)(Order on Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment).

Educational Background:

  • B.A. - Columbia College, Columbia University, 1979
Show More
Office Location for Mark F. Itzkowitz

175 Federal Street
Suite 1425
Boston, MA 02110-2287

Mark F. Itzkowitz:

Last Updated: 4/26/2021

Page Generated: 0.38983488082886 sec