George v. W.W.D. Automobiles, Inc., et al.
| Docket Number: | 2004-CA-01944-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-13-2006 Opinion Author: IRVING, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Malicious prosecution - Malice - Probable cause - Section 97-17-61 - Damages Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., SOUTHWICK, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-23-2004 Appealed from: WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Richard Smith Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED TO DEFENDANT ON CLAIM OF ALICIOUS PROSECUTION. Case Number: CI2002-296 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | DE’LISA GEORGE |
ANITA M. STAMPS |
||
| Appellee: | W.W.D. AUTOMOBILES, INCORPORATED D/B/A TOM WADLER NISSAN, RICHARD STEPHNEY AND LEONARDO WEATHERSPOON | ROBERT F. STACY, CHRISTINE B. TATUM |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Malicious prosecution - Malice - Probable cause - Section 97-17-61 - Damages |
| Summary of the Facts: | De’Lisa George sued W.W.D. Automobiles, Inc., Richard Stephney, and Leonardo Weatherspoon, alleging malicious prosecution. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. George appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The elements of the tort of malicious prosecution include: (1) The institution of a proceeding (2) by, or at the insistence of the defendant (3) the termination of such proceedings in the plaintiff’s favor (4) malice in instituting the proceedings (5) want of probable cause for the proceedings (6) the suffering of injury or damage as a result. The defendants conceded that elements one, two, and three above were present in George’s cause of action. The defendants argue that there was absolutely no evidence that they acted with any malice in instituting the proceedings against George. Malice in relation to malicious prosecution connotes a prosecution instituted primarily for a purpose other than that of bringing an offender to justice; as such, it refers to the defendant’s objective, not his attitude. The defendants concede that their lone purpose was to get the vehicle back. The general manager unequivocally testified that he was not interested in bringing George to justice, a fact further evidenced by the dealership’s dropping of the charge once it regained possession of the vehicle. Based upon these facts, a jury could easily make a finding of malice. With regard to probable cause, George was charged with violating section 97-17-61 which requires a taking and carrying away of an automobile without the consent of its owner. Here, there clearly was not a taking and carrying away of the vehicle. Notwithstanding the conditional delivery agreement, the vehicle was nevertheless placed in George’s possession. Moreover, Tom Wadler Nissan provided George with relevant documents which clearly demonstrated some indicia of ownership. With regard to damages, a jury could conclude that George suffered some damages resulting from the mental anguish and distress associated with the possibility of having to pay a hefty fine, the possibility of serving at least one year in jail, or both. Because genuine issues of material fact exist the lower court’s grant of summary judgment is reversed and remanded. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
