Title: Higgins v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

512 So. 2d 766 (1987)
Leonard A. HIGGINS, Jr.
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC., and H. David Clark.
86-31.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
July 24, 1987.
*767 Joseph L. Dean, Jr., of Herndon & Dean, Opelika, for appellant.
H.E. Nix, Jr., and Alex L. Holtsford, Jr., of Hill, Hill, Carter, Franco, Cole & Black, Montgomery, for appellees.
BEATTY, Justice.
Appeal by Leonard A. Higgins, plaintiff, from a summary judgment for the defendants, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and H. David Clark, and from the denial of consent to file a second amended complaint, in plaintiff's action based upon allegations of malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and false arrest. We reverse and remand.
The trial court's order on summary judgment disclosed that court's consideration of the following material:
Plaintiff's complaint stated causes of action against Wal-Mart and Clark in malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and false arrest.
Summary judgment is appropriate only when the moving party has demonstrated that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Kutack v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., 411 So. 2d 137 (Ala.1982). Thus, the trial court's task was to test the elements of each cause of action against the material before it to determine whether any genuine issues of material fact existed.
*768 The elements of malicious prosecution are: (1) the institution or continuation of original judicial proceedings, either civil or criminal; (2) by, or at the instance of, the defendant; (3) the termination of such proceedings in plaintiff's favor; (4) malice in instituting the proceedings; (5) want of probable cause for the proceeding; and (6) the suffering of injury or damage as the result of the action or prosecution complained of. Evans v. Alabama Professional Health Consultants, Inc., 474 So. 2d 86 (Ala.1985), citing Turner v. J. Blach & Sons, 242 Ala. 127, 129, 5 So. 2d 93, 94 (1941).
The elements of an action for abuse of process are: (1) malice, (2) the existence of an ulterior purpose, (3) an act in the use of process not proper in the regular prosecution of the proceedings, Tapscott v. Fowler, 437 So. 2d 116 (Ala.1983), and (4) want of probable cause. Tarver v. Household Finance Corp., 291 Ala. 25, 26, 277 So. 2d 330, 333-34 (1973).
Similarly, in a cause of action for false arrest, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant caused him to be arrested without probable cause. As pointed out in Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 at 175, 69 S. Ct. 1302 at 1310, 93 L. Ed. 1879 (1949):
Thus, for a detention to be valid, the officer must reasonably, and in good faith, suspect the individual detained of being involved in some form of criminality. Fennell v. State, 51 Ala.App. 23, 282 So. 2d 373, cert. denied, 291 Ala. 778, 282 So. 2d 379 (1973). Reasonable ground for belief of guilt, or probable cause, "exists where the facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed." Fennell, 51 Ala.App. at 29, 282 So. 2d  at 378.
As applied in malicious prosecution actions, probable cause is "such a state of facts in the mind of the prosecutor as would lead a man of ordinary caution and prudence to believe or entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person arrested is guilty." Birwood Paper Co. v. Damsky, 285 Ala. 127, 134, 229 So. 2d 514, 521 (1969). And, as stated in S.S. Kresge Co. v. Ruby, 348 So. 2d 484, 488 (Ala.1977):
Notwithstanding these rubrical principles, the existence or non-existence of proximate cause is a jury question "if the facts or any necessary particular fact on the issue of probable cause is in dispute." Key v. Dozier, 252 Ala. 631, 634, 42 So. 2d 254 (1949), and cases cited therein. See also National Security Fire & Casualty Co. v. Bowen, 447 So. 2d 133 (Ala.1983).
The affidavit of H. David Clark was executed on February 1, 1986, after the plaintiff's action was filed. The material assertions of that affidavit follow:
Clark's extensive deposition established that he observed Leonard Higgins and Dexter Wilson in the pet department of the Wal-Mart store as he was making his rounds a few minutes before the incident in question. When Clark next noticed them, Wilson was standing at the electronics department looking at a camera with a store employee. Higgins was standing in an aisle in the same department looking at a portable telephone. According to Clark, Higgins placed the telephone in a merchandise cart that also contained a large bag of Purina Dog Chow and a mop. A few seconds intervened before Clark observed the two again when he checked the toy aisle near the register. Greg McCoy had replaced the electronics department employee and was talking to Wilson about the camera. As Clark, in plain clothes, walked by them, Higgins pushed the cart forward as McCoy was ringing up an item on the register. Clark did not look at the register or at the individuals when McCoy actually rang up the transaction and handed over the sales receipt. He walked down the aisle, and, he said, about 15 or 20 seconds later, he was standing at the cosmetics counter, about 10 to 15 feet from and at an angle to the register, when Wilson and Higgins walked by him. He continued:
Clark said he then observed both Higgins and Wilson, directly behind the buggy and side by side, walking toward the front of the store, looking at the registers and looking behind them:
Ms. Cindy Apgar, an employee at the service desk, left the store as requested, talked to Wilson and Higgins, and, as Clark stated, returned to the store appearing distressed. Higgins accompanied her to the door, where Clark met him, identified himself, and stated that he needed to speak to him about the situation:
Clark proceeded to fill out some company reports, for which he obtained the names and addresses of the three persons detained prior to the time the police arrived. He went to the police department, related the event to a detective, and remained there throughout the police investigation, which included police interrogation of each person. Clark sat in the room while each person was questioned. According to Clark, although Higgins denied any involvement, Wilson gave two written statements:
Clark was also present when McCoy was giving his statement to the police:
"A. At first Greg denied any knowledge of what had happened. Then, he gave some conflicting statements which Detective Quenelle was able to go in and confront the other individuals on and then confront Greg McCoy on hison what he had been told by the others. And Greg McCoy finally broke down and gave his confession as to his involvement on it and implicated hishishis roommate *772 at the time, which was Dexter Wilson. And he said he had no knowledge of Leonard Higgins even beingeven coming down to the store with
The McCoy statement, in which McCoy implicated Wilson, was as follows:
Although Clark testified that Wilson implicated Higgins, Wilson denied making any statement on the night the interrogations occurred. No such statement of Wilson was introduced at Higgins's subsequent trial and none is contained in the record.
The following day, March 5, 1984, Clark signed an arrest warrant against Higgins which charged him with theft of property in the second degree.
On April 5, 1984, Wilson and McCoy pleaded guilty to theft of property in the second degree. Subsequently, the Lee County grand jury, after Clark had testified before it that Wilson had implicated Higgins in the "under-ringing" scheme, which implication Wilson denied, indicted Higgins on a charge of theft of property in the second degree. Higgins pleaded not guilty, and, at his trial by jury on that indictment, he was found not guilty, and this action for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and false arrest ensued.
Perusal of Clark's statements made in connection with the summary judgment motion discloses that the following facts were material to the defendants on the issue of probable cause:
Clark was suspicious of the motives and conduct of Wilson and Higgins because of what he considered to be the small amount of time it took for them to check out at the cash register;
Clark's suspicions were further aroused because of the movements of Wilson and Higgins, i.e., hesitating, looking at the registers, looking from side to side, and looking behind them;
Clark's suspicions were enhanced because Wilson did not return to the store with Higgins, but, in Clark's opinion, pretended to use a telephone; and
Clark's statement that Higgins told Clark that he did not know Greg McCoy.
Each of these postulations, however, is directly contested. Higgins's affidavit submitted in opposition to summary judgment contains the following:
Additionally, Wilson denied giving any statement to anyone that implicated Higgins in the "under-ringing" scheme.
Clark, moreover, testified by deposition that the item he saw Higgins put into the shopping cart was a cordless telephone. However, Higgins consistently denied placing any telephone in the cart, or even handling a telephone.
Finally, there is Clark's account of his observations of Higgins and Wilson at the time they checked out. As previously noted, in his deposition Clark testified that it took them only 15 to 20 seconds to check *774 out and pass him some 10 to 15 feet away. Yet, Clark's own handwritten statement made only hours after the incident at the Auburn Police Department stated:
Thus, Clark's own statements concerning the time frame of his observation of Higgins and Wilsonthe initial cause of his aroused suspicionsare in conflict.
These disputed facts, we respectfully submit, clearly make the issue of probable cause one for the jury. Indeed, on summary judgment, all reasonable inferences from the facts are viewed most favorably to the nonmoving party. Kutack, supra. Contrary to Clark's statements, there are facts from which a jury could reasonable infer that Higgins himself took nothing, knew of no scheme, was not implicated by the others, and made no movements tending to cause reasonable suspicion. Consequently, summary judgment on the counts for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and false arrest was improper, and the trial court erred in granting it.
At a pre-trial conference, on June 20, 1986, the trial court entered the following schedule order: "Any amendments to the pleadings are to be filed on or before 8-14-86." (Emphasis added.) This order also set August 14, 1986, as the date for the pre-trial conference and for a hearing on "motion for summary judgment." Additionally, the order recited: "This cause is set for trial on the merits on fall term which starts 9-16-86."
In compliance with the order, which remained unchanged, Higgins filed a second amended complaint on August 14, 1986, i.e., within the time allowed by the order itself. On the objection of the defendants, however, the trial court denied plaintiff permission to file the amendment.
The amendment itself purported to state a cause of action in defamation. It averred that the defendants had placed plaintiff's photograph on a bulletin board in the Auburn Wal-Mart store devoted to photographs of persons arrested for shoplifting or stealing, that it was placed there shortly after March 4, 1984, and remained there until sometime in the fall of 1984, after June 7, 1984, the date plaintiff was acquitted. Although this cause of action was different in its nature from those alleged earlier, it is clear that it arose out of the same incident. Indeed, Clark conceded that he took the picture in connection with the store program then in existence. Moreover, in view of the extensive discovery engaged in by the parties, it is highly unlikely that the defendants or their counsel were unmindful of this evidence or of its possible legal implications. Be that as it may, Rule 15(a), A.R.Civ.P., and the decisions of this Court make it clear that amendments are not to be unduly restricted, but freely allowed when justice requires. Suffice it to state here that no showing of prejudice was made, Miller v. Holder, 292 Ala. 554, 297 So. 2d 802 (1974), nor was there a showing of any unfair disadvantage to the defendants. Indeed, neither they nor plaintiff objected to the amendment/trial schedule at the time the scheduling order was entered, or at any time prior to the filing of the amendment. Thus, we find that the well-meaning trial court abused its discretion in denying the amendment when it was filed in compliance with the trial court's order as to the time for filing such amendments, and there was no showing of prejudice.
For the reasons stated, the judgment must be, and it is, reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings. It is so ordered.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
MADDOX, JONES, ALMON and SHORES, JJ., concur.