Title: Sarwark Motor Sales, Inc. v. Woolridge

State: arizona

Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court

Document:

88 Ariz. 173 (1960) 354 P.2d 34 SARWARK MOTOR SALES, INC., a Corporation, and Dan O'Meara, Appellants, v. Alfred WOOLRIDGE, Appellee. No. 6511. Supreme Court of Arizona. July 12, 1960. *175 Scott, Cavness & Yankee, Phoenix, for appellants. Eugene C. Simon, and Stephen W. Connors, Phoenix, for appellee. BERNSTEIN, Justice. Appellants Sarwark Motor Sales, Inc. (hereinafter called "Sarwark") and Dan O'Meara (hereinafter called "O'Meara") appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Maricopa County, entered upon a jury verdict, awarding Alfred Woolridge (hereinafter called "plaintiff") actual damages in the sum of $250 and punitive damages in the sum of $5,000, and from an order denying appellants' motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. Plaintiff's complaint set forth one cause of action sounding in malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. The record shows that on October 13, 1955 plaintiff visited the used car lot owned by Sarwark for the purpose of buying a used automobile. Forrest E. Jackson, a salesman for Sarwark, waited on plaintiff and showed him a convertible automobile, which plaintiff drove out of the lot. Plaintiff testified that Jackson had given him permission to test drive the convertible; Jackson denied that he had given such permission. Shortly thereafter, Jackson reported to O'Meara, vice-president and general manager of Sarwark, that the car was missing. O'Meara checked with the other salesmen, all of whom denied having given permission to plaintiff to remove the car. O'Meara then called the police and signed a stolen car report which led to the *176 arrest, trial and subsequent acquittal of plaintiff. The evidence shows that prior to his arrest, plaintiff had voluntarily returned the car to the Sarwark lot. There was also testimony that another employee of Sarwark told O'Meara, either the next day or a week later, that he recalled hearing Jackson give plaintiff permission to test drive the convertible. There was substantial conflict in the evidence as to the events that led to the arrest of plaintiff, and thereafter, and especially the part played by O'Meara. The details of the evidence need not be set forth further, in view of our decision that a new trial is necessary. Appellants assign as error the instructions of the court relating to the element of probable cause. Their position, in sum, is that the court erroneously instructed the jury to determine the existence of probable cause, which is a question of law for the court. The elements of a cause of action for malicious prosecution are described in Prosser, Law of Torts, § 98 (2d ed.), as follows: See also 1 Harper and James, Law of Torts, § 4.1; Restatement of Torts, § 653. Thus, "absence" or "want of probable cause" is a separate element of a cause of action for malicious prosecution. As stated in McClinton v. Rice, 76 Ariz. 358, 366, 265 P.2d 425, 430, the question is, did the plaintiff "show want of probable cause, one of the essentials of malicious prosecution?" Probable cause was there defined as "a reasonable ground of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficient to warrant an ordinarily prudent man in believing the accused is guilty of the offense" (76 Ariz. at page 367, 265 P.2d at page 431). See also, Griswold v. Horne, 19 Ariz. 56, 165 P. 318, L.R.A. 1918A, 862; Cunningham v. Moreno, 9 Ariz. 300, 80 P. 327. With respect to the point here in issue, the Court in McClinton v. Rice, supra, stated: The precise roles played by the court and jury in resolving this question of law as to probable cause were clearly set forth in this Court's opinion in Murphy v. Russell, 40 Ariz. 109, 9 P.2d 1020. There it was stated: See also, McDonald v. Atlantic & Pacific R.R., 3 Ariz. 96, 21 P. 338; Leeker v. Ybanez, 24 Ariz. 574, 211 P. 864. *178 These rules, which are clearly established in this State, are in accord with the law generally recognized and applied in other jurisdictions. Thus, the Restatement of Torts, § 673 states that "the court determines whether * * * the defendant had probable cause for initiating the proceedings * * *." The Comment to that section provides: See also Prosser, supra, § 98; 1 Harper and James, supra, § 4.5. In the instant case the court instructed the jury on the issue of probable cause, as follows: The above instructions are substantially similar to those under review in Murphy v. Russell, supra. There, as here, the plaintiff *179 received judgment, based upon a jury verdict, in a malicious prosecution action. The court, as here, instructed the jury as to probable cause, in general terms which were not claimed to be incorrect. The objection was that the court delegated to the jury the duty of determining the issue of probable cause, which properly belonged to the court. In reversing the judgment and remanding the case for a new trial, this Court stated: We hold that the court in the instant case similarly committed reversible error by its instructions relating to the issue of probable cause. Plaintiff's contention that appellants waived the error in the court's instructions is not supported by the record. Appellants' Requested Instruction 7 contained a hypothetical statement of the facts which according to appellants, would, if found by the jury, require it to conclude there was probable cause. Appellants cited Murphy v. Russell, supra, on the Requested Instruction, and upon the settlement of the instructions made a proper objection and argued to the court that the court's own proposed instruction on the We recognize that the court may properly have rejected the precise form of the hypothetical statement contained in Appellants' Requested Instruction 7. This, however, does not permit an entirely different *180 form of instruction to be given to the jury, in complete disregard of this Court's ruling in Murphy v. Russell, supra. In Stallcup v. Coscarart, 79 Ariz. 42, 51, 52, 282 P.2d 791, 797, the plaintiff there submitted a proposed instruction which this Court stated was "not entirely accurate," but because the trial court "deleted the other essential portions thereof," the court's instruction was held to be in error and the plaintiff was deemed not to have waived his right to claim such error on appeal. Indeed, on a "vital question," such as the existence of probable cause, the trial court has the obligation, on its own motion, to instruct the jury properly. See Tipton v. Burson, 73 Ariz. 144, 151, 238 P.2d 1098. In the instant case appellants called to the attention of the trial court, both by their form of instruction and by their citation of Murphy v. Russell, supra, the proper form of instruction to be given to the jury on the question of probable cause. Rule 51(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., does not, as contended here by Plaintiff, require more. As stated in City of Tucson v. Koerber, 82 Ariz. 347, 357, 313 P.2d 411, 419, the purpose of Rule 51(a) Further, because plaintiff may have led the trial court into giving the above erroneous instruction, it ill behooves him to deny the propriety of appellants' assigning the instruction as error. Thus plaintiff's Requested Instructions 5 and 6, relating to probable cause, though refused by the court, completely disregarded the form of instructions sanctioned in Murphy v. Russell, supra, and cited as authority therefor cases from other jurisdictions. Plaintiff also urges that even if the verdict can not be sustained on the theory of malicious prosecution, it was proper in view of the proof offered on the cause of action for false arrest or imprisonment. We consider this contention to be without merit. The two theories of malicious prosecution and false imprisonment were set forth in one cause of action. The form of verdict required the jury to find for or against plaintiff or appellants generally, and not as to each of the two alleged causes of action. Thus, the error which prejudiced appellants with respect to the claim based on malicious prosecution cannot reasonably be said to have been nullified by the possibility that the jury might have found in favor of the Plaintiff on the theory of false imprisonment and, in addition, might have awarded the same compensatory and punitive damages on that theory alone. See Wisniski v. Ong, 84 Ariz. 372, 329 P.2d 1097. *181 Such a possibility is even more remote in the instant situation where the arrest was made by a police officer. In such situation, the action for false imprisonment lies against appellants only if, as indicated in the trial court's instructions herein, the jury find "that such arrest was unlawful" and that appellant O'Meara "committed some improper act in addition to his giving information to the police officers tending to show that the plaintiff was guilty of a crime." As stated in Prosser, supra, § 12: See also, Restatement of Torts, § 37, Comment b: With respect to appellants' appeal from the order denying their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, we have reviewed the record and hold that the trial court did not err in denying that motion, for the reason that there was sufficient competent, though conflicting, evidence to permit the jury to find in favor of the plaintiff on each of the material elements of his claim for relief. See Rule 50, Rules *182 of Civil Procedure; Casey v. Beaudry Motor Co., 83 Ariz. 6, 315 P.2d 662; Matsumato v. Arizona Sand & Rock Co., 80 Ariz. 232, 295 P.2d 850, 56 A.L.R.2d 1385. Our disposition hereof makes it unnecessary to consider appellants' other assignments of error. The order denying appellants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is affirmed. The judgment and the order denying appellants' motion for a new trial are reversed and the action is remanded for a new trial. STRUCKMEYER, C.J., and PHELPS, JOHNSON and UDALL, JJ., concur.