Opinion ID: 1431624
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: arrest or seizure of property and special injury in malicious prosecution of a civil case

Text: Van Woerden contends the trial court erred in dismissing his amended third-party counterclaim because the elements of malicious prosecution had not been alleged. He further asserts that the court construed too restrictively common-law requirements for a civil malicious prosecution suit, or alternatively, that a statute which may have liberalized the common law, enacted after entry of summary judgment, controls and defines the elements of the cause. We affirm the dismissal for failure to fulfill Washington's common-law requirements for the cause and decline to speculate on the nature of the cause of action under the newly enacted statute, which is inapplicable to this case. [3] This court succinctly set out Washington's common-law elements of the tort of civil malicious prosecution in Peasley v. Puget Sound Tug & Barge Co., 13 Wn.2d 485, 125 P.2d 681 (1942): To maintain an action for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must allege and prove (1) that the prosecution claimed to have been malicious was instituted or continued by the defendant; (2) that there was want of probable cause for the institution or continuation of the prosecution; (3) that the proceedings were instituted or continued through malice; (4) that the proceedings terminated on the merits in favor of the plaintiff, or were abandoned; and (5) that the plaintiff suffered injury or damage as a result of the prosecution. Peasley v. Puget Sound Tug & Barge Co., supra at 497. [2] This court last reaffirmed this state's restrictive view of the injury necessary to satisfy condition (5) in Petrich v. McDonald, 44 Wn.2d 211, 215, 266 P.2d 1047 (1954): [A] cause of action for malicious prosecution will not lie when there is neither (1) an arrest, or (in the alternative) attachment of property, nor (2) special injury sustained (meaning an injury which would not necessarily result in similar suits). Van Woerden urges this court to overturn our view of the injury necessary to maintain a civil malicious prosecution suit. In Petrich this court carefully reconsidered the policy underlying the requirement that special injury and arrest of the person or seizure of property be shown to maintain an action for civil malicious prosecution. In analyzing the requirement for arrest or seizure of property and special damages, this court made it clear that it was aware of the adoption in perhaps a majority of the states of a so-called liberal rule, under which an action for malicious prosecution will lie even when there is no arrest and no interference with property. Petrich v. McDonald, supra at 219. The requirement of arrest or seizure of property and special injury has been abandoned in some jurisdictions in order to increase the instances in which a suit for civil malicious prosecution can be successfully brought. Among the grounds advanced for liberalization of the cause of action are the belief that award of costs does not adequately compensate the wrongly sued defendant and the need to limit vexatious lawsuits. See, e.g., Ackerman v. Kaufman, 41 Ariz. 110, 15 P.2d 966 (1932); Eastin v. Bank of Stockton, 66 Cal. 123, 4 P. 1106 (1884); Harvill v. Tabor, 240 Miss. 750, 128 So.2d 863 (1961). However, the limitation of civil malicious prosecution suits to cases in which arrest or seizure of property and special injury can be shown also acts to limit the number of vexatious actions brought in our courts. We chose in Petrich to retain the requirement of arrest or seizure of property and special injury which was established in this state in 1904 and has been followed ever since, in order `not to hamper the litigant or intimidate him from fully and fearlessly presenting his case.' Petrich v. McDonald, supra at 217, quoting Abbott v. Thorne, 34 Wash. 692, 76 P. 302 (1904). See also Manhattan Quality Clothes v. Cable, 154 Wash. 654, 656, 283 P. 460 (1929). Abbott, in establishing the rule now challenged in this case, adopted the following reasoning: [W]e are forced to the conclusion, from an investigation of authorities and a consideration of the principles involved, ... that an action will not lie for the prosecution of a civil action with malice and without probable cause, when there has been no arrest of the person or attachment of the property of the defendant, and no special injury sustained, or injury which is not the necessary result in such suits.... The right of free allegations in a pleading has always been considered privileged. Courts are instituted to grant relief to litigants, and are open to all who seek remedies for injuries sustained; ... While it is no doubt true that, in some instances, the peril of costs is not a sufficient restraint, and the recovery of costs is not an adequate compensation for the expenses and annoyances incident to the defense of a suit, yet all who indulge in litigation are necessarily subject to burdens the exact weight of which cannot be calculated in advance, and a rule must be established which, as a whole, is the most wholesome in its effects, and accords in the greatest degree with public policy. If the rule were established that an action could be maintained simply upon the failure of a plaintiff to substantiate the allegations of his complaint in the original action, litigation would become interminable, and the failure of one suit, instead of ending litigation, which is the policy of the law, would be a precursor of another; and, if that suit perchance should fail, it would establish the basis for still another. Abbott v. Thorne, 34 Wash. 692, 694-95, 76 P. 302 (1904). The Court of Appeals cited similar arguments in affirming dismissal of Van Woerden's malicious prosecution claim. Gem Trading Co. v. Cudahy Corp., 22 Wn. App. 278, 287, 588 P.2d 1222 (1979). The limitation of civil malicious prosecution actions to instances in which the plaintiff can prove arrest or seizure of property and special injury still serves the dual purposes of allowing the honest plaintiff to press his case without threat of suit and of limiting vexatious lawsuits, and thus we reaffirm these elements of the common-law cause of action in Washington. In reaffirming the holding of Petrich we retain the requirement that a malicious prosecution action must show both special injury and arrest or seizure of property. Appellant next contends that the enactment of RCW 4.24.350 in June 1977, after entry of summary judgment in this case, justifies abrogation of the requirement of arrest or seizure of property. RCW 4.24.350 provides: In any action for damages, whether based on tort or contract or otherwise, a claim or counterclaim for damages may be litigated in the principal action for malicious prosecution on the ground that the action was instituted with knowledge that the same was false, and unfounded, malicious and without probable cause in the filing of such action, or that the same was filed as a part of a conspiracy to misuse judicial process by filing an action known to be false and unfounded. [4] Statutes are presumed to apply prospectively only. Amburn v. Daly, 81 Wn.2d 241, 501 P.2d 178 (1972). However, a remedial statute, which relates to practice, procedure or remedies and does not affect a substantive or vested right, may operate retroactively, Yellam v. Woerner, 77 Wn.2d 604, 464 P.2d 947 (1970). [5] Van Woerden argues that the statute, which provides for a new type of counterclaim, is procedural in nature and thus should be applied retroactively. However if the statute is merely procedural and thus acts only to streamline the cause of action, the common-law substantive elements not explicitly abrogated by the statute ( i.e., the requirement of arrest or seizure of property and special injury) must remain. On the other hand, if the statute is substantive and changes the elements of the cause of action, it cannot apply retroactively to save appellant's claim. Thus, the new statute is not material to the case at bar because if it is substantive it does not apply retroactively and if it is procedural it does not change the common-law elements. We therefore do not decide the nature of the cause of action for civil malicious prosecution under RCW 4.24.350. We hold only that the common-law action of civil malicious prosecution in the state of Washington requires that the appellant plead and prove both special injury and arrest of the person or seizure of property. Affirmed. UTTER, C.J., and ROSELLINI, STAFFORD, WRIGHT, BRACHTENBACH, DOLLIVER, HICKS, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur. Reconsideration denied February 14, 1980.