Court Opinion

ID: 9562898
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:34:51.277836+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:35.628678
License: Public Domain

*523WARREN, J.,
concurring.
I concur with the opinion by Judge Rossman and write separately because I believe Judge Buttler, in his dissent from the reversal of the malicious prosecution action, misreads what the Supreme Court said in Lampos v. Bazar, Inc., 270 Or 256, 527 P2d 376 (1974), as altering the traditional roles of the judge and jury in resolving the question of probable cause in malicious prosecution actions. The law is settled in Oregon that the question of probable cause is always for the court, not the jury.
“Whether defendant had probable cause is a question of law for the court to decide if the facts and the inferences from the facts are undisputed. Kuhnhausen v. Stadelman, 174 Or 290, 310-311, 148 P2d 239, 149 P2d 168 (1944). If the facts or inferences are in dispute the jury must decide the facts and the court must instruct the jury what facts constitute probable cause.* * *” Varner v. Hoffer, 267 Or 175, 178-79, 515 P2d 920 (1973). (Footnote omitted.)
See also Gustafson v. Payless Drug Stores, 269 Or 354, 357-58, 525 P2d 118 (1974). Proof of probable cause is a complete defense to an action for malicious prosecution. Gustafson v. Payless Stores, supra, 269 Or at 356. When a party relies on “advice of counsel” to establish probable cause, the defense is established when the requirements of Restatement (Second) Torts § 666 (1977) have been met. See Lampos v. Bazar, Inc., supra, 270 Or at 269. That section provides:
“(1) The advice of an attorney at law admitted to practice and practicing in the state in which the proceedings are brought, whom a client has no reason to believe to have a personal interest in obtaining a conviction, is conclusive of the existence of probable cause for initiating criminal proceedings in reliance upon the advice if it is
“(a) sought in good faith, and
“(b) given after a full disclosure of the facts within the accuser’s knowledge and information.
' “(2) The advice of an attorney admitted to practice in a state other than that in which the proceedings are brought, *524given under the conditions stated in Subsection (1), is conclusive of the existence of probable cause if the client reasonably believes that the attorney is competent to form a reliable opinion as to the law of the state in which the proceedings are brought.”
Fact questions about good faith, full disclosure and reason to conduct additional investigation will commonly remain for jury decision. Lampos v. Bazar, Inc., supra, 270 Or at 271: Restatement (Second) Torts, § 666, comment g (1977). When the jury decides those questions favorably to the defendant, the defense has been established, and the jury should be instructed that those facts constitute probable cause. See Gustafson v. Payless Drug Stores, supra, 269 Or at 357-58.
In this case the trial court essentially told the jury that it could find that defendant sought advice of counsel in good faith, made a truthful disclosure of all material facts known or discoverable by the accuser with reasonable diligence and in good faith, in reliance on counsel’s advice commenced the criminal prosecution, but that it could nevertheless find that defendant brought the prosecution without probable cause. The vice of the instruction is that it permitted the jury to resolve favorably to the defendant all of the issues that establish probable cause as a matter of law and yet decide that those facts provided no defense.