Court Opinion

ID: 9675445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:54:13.874198+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:34.592672
License: Public Domain

HENLEY, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
*639I believe that in determining whether plaintiff made a submissible case on the issue of whether defendants had probable cause to initiate their civil suit against plaintiff and Kinder, the majority opinion overlooks matters that should be considered in an action for wrongful initiation of civil proceedings and applies the test applicable only to an action for malicious prosecution of criminal proceedings.
Matters or points of difference between the two types of proceedings that should have been considered in determining sub-missibility of this case are discussed in Comment d, § 675, Restatement, Torts 2d (1977) as follows:
“In one particular a private prosecutor’s reasonable belief in the guilt of the accused differs from the reasonable belief of one who initiates private civil proceedings against another. A private prosecutor does not have reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has conducted himself in a particular manner, if he merely entertains a suspicion even though he reasonably believes it may be verified upon further investigation. * * * On the other hand, when the proceedings are civil, while the person initiating them cannot have a reasonable belief in the existence of the facts on which the proceedings are based if he knows that the alleged facts are not true and his claim is based on false testimony, it is enough if their existence is not certain but he believes that he can establish their existence to the satisfaction of court and jury. In a word, the initiator of private civil proceedings need not have the same degree of certainty as to the relevant facts that is required of a private prosecutor of criminal proceedings. In many cases civil proceedings, to be effective, must be begun before all of the relevant facts can be ascertained to a reasonable degree of certainty. To put the initiator of civil proceedings to a greater risk of liability would put an undesirable burden upon those whose rights cannot be otherwise effectively enforced.”
I believe that the majority opinion requires of the initiator of private civil proceedings a much greater degree of certainty as to the relevant facts than is required by the Restatement. I agree with the Restatement.
For the reasons stated, I would hold that plaintiff failed to make a submissible case, would adopt Chapter 30, Restatement of the Law, Torts 2d, and would reverse the judgment and remand the case for retrial.