Melton v. LaCalamito
1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 2432, 158 Ga. App. 820, 282 S.E.2d 393 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual instigates a criminal prosecution and may be liable for malicious prosecution if their persuasion is the determining factor in an officer's decision to arrest, particularly when the individual disregards a plausible explanation that would negate a reasonable belief of probable cause.
Facts:
- On May 29, 1976, appellee rented a U-Haul trailer and hitch in New Jersey to move to Atlanta.
- Upon returning the equipment in Atlanta, the U-Haul agent, Melton, observed two U-Haul furniture pads in the trunk of appellee's car.
- Appellee explained that his father was a former U-Haul dealer and the company had left the pads behind over 10 years prior, with the family possessing them ever since.
- The rental agreement confirmed that appellee had not rented any furniture pads for this trip.
- Melton refused to return appellee's deposit unless he surrendered the pads, and when appellee refused, Melton called the police.
- Appellee's mother, a New Jersey law enforcement officer, arrived at the scene and corroborated her son's explanation of ownership to both Melton and the police.
- Despite the explanations, Melton continued to insist to the police that the pads were U-Haul property.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellee filed an action against appellants Melton and U-Haul Co. in a Georgia trial court for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment.
- A jury in the trial court returned a verdict for the appellee, awarding him $10,000 in actual damages and $5,000 in punitive damages.
- The trial court denied the appellants' motions for a directed verdict.
- Appellants (Melton and U-Haul) appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a company agent who calls the police over a property dispute and persistently insists the property belongs to the company, leading to an arrest despite a plausible explanation from the accused, commit malicious prosecution for which the company is also liable?
Opinions:
Majority - Pope, Judge.
Yes, a company agent who instigates an arrest under these circumstances commits malicious prosecution, and the company is liable for the agent's actions. The court found that U-Haul could be held liable for Melton's actions because, although an independent contractor, he was acting under U-Haul's implied command to recover company property. The court further held that one can be liable for malicious prosecution without expressly directing an arrest if their persuasion was the 'determining factor' in the officer's decision. Here, Melton's continued insistence that the pads belonged to U-Haul over a 30-40 minute period, despite plausible explanations to the contrary, was the determining factor in the arrest. There was no probable cause for the prosecution because a reasonable person, when presented with the appellee's and his mother's explanation, would have investigated further rather than pressing for an arrest over low-value items. Malice could be inferred from the circumstances, and the agent's 'conscious indifference to consequences' justified the award of punitive damages.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the threshold for liability in malicious prosecution cases, distinguishing between merely reporting facts to law enforcement and actively instigating a prosecution. The ruling establishes that a defendant's persistence in the face of a plausible, exculpatory explanation can eliminate the 'independent decision' defense for police action and serve as evidence of both a lack of probable cause and malice. Furthermore, it reinforces the principle of vicarious liability, holding a principal (U-Haul) responsible for the tortious acts of its agent, even an independent contractor, when those acts are performed under the principal's implied command. This precedent cautions individuals and businesses against using law enforcement to settle property disputes where ownership is reasonably contested.
