Creelman v. Svenning
| Decision Date | 27 January 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 37969,37969 |
| Citation | 410 P.2d 606,67 Wn.2d 882 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | C. W. CREELMAN, Appellant, v. Orville SVENNING and Jane Doe Svenning, his wife, and the marital community composed thereof, and the State of Washington, Snohomish County, a subdivision thereof, Respondents. |
Houghton, Cluck, Coughlin, Schubat & Riley, John W. Riley, Seattle, for appellant.
John J. O'Connell Atty. Gen., Charles F. Murphy, Dean A. Floyd, Lloyd W. Peterson, Olympia, for the State.
Robert E. Schillberg, Pros. Atty., Robert K. Waitt, Sp. Asst. Deputy Prosecuting Atty., Seattle, for Snohomish County.
The question presented is whether there is any liability by the county and the state for a malicious prosecution by a prosecuting attorney.
For a speedy determination of that question, we make two assumptions: one, that the prosecutor has maliciously and without just cause prosecuted the plaintiff; second, that the position of the prosecutor is such that both the county and the state could be responsible for his tortious conduct.
We wish to make it clear, beyond question, that the first assumption involves a question of fact which has not been determined by any trier of the facts; and the second involves a question of law which must remain open until a determination is required.
We summarize the circumstances culminating in the malicious prosecution action now before the court. Orville Svenning swore out a complaint against an adjoining landowner, C. W. Creelman, charging him with criminal trespass. A deputy prosecuting attorney of Snohomish County prepared the complaint and processed it through the usual procedure to secure the arrest of Mr. Creelman, who was released on bail in the sum of $1,000. When the case was brought to trial, it was dismissed by the justice of the peace.
Mr. Creelman then commenced this malicious prosecution action, joining as defendants Orville Svenning and his wife, Snohomish County, and the State of Washington. The Svennings, as the instigators of the criminal prosecution against Creelman, were proper parties. Creelman had filed tort claims against the county and the state, based on the damages alleged to have been sustained as the result of the alleged arbitrary, capricious, and negligent conduct of the prosecuting attorney's office. These claims were denied, and are the basis of Mr. Creelman's joinder of the county and the state as defendants.
The complaint alleges that the prosecuting attorney's office had information indicating that there was no probable cause for the criminal trespass action and that the slightest investigation would have made that fact apparent.
The plaintiff appeals from the orders dismissing the action against the county and the state. (The action is still pending against the Svennings.)
All parties concede that the prosecuting attorney, acting as he does in a quasi-judicial capacity, is, as a matter of public policy, immune from liability for acts done in his official capacity. See Mitchelle v. Steele, 39 Wash.2d 473, 236 P.2d 349 (1951); and Anderson v. Manley, 181 Wash. 327, 43 P.2d 39 (1935).
The reason for the individual immunity accorded the prosecuting attorney is well expressed in Anderson v. Manley, supra (p. 331, 43 P.2d p. 40):
While it is true that a prosecuting attorney acting in a matter which is clearly outside of the duties of his office is personally liable to one injured by his acts, a prosecuting attorney, as stated above, is not liable for instituting prosecution, although he acted with malice and without probable cause, if the matters acted on are among those generally committed by the law to the control or supervision of the office and are not palpably beyond authority of the office. The doctrine of exemption of judicial and quasi-judicial officers (the prosecuting attorney comes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roy v. City of Everett
...finding that an employer is liable when liability is based solely on the doctrine of respondeat superior); cf. Creelman v. Svenning, 67 Wash.2d 882, 885, 410 P.2d 606 (1966) (common law prosecutorial immunity which shields judicial or quasi-judicial officers extends to municipal employer fo......
-
Lutheran Day Care v. Snohomish County
...the hearing examiner and county council members and we base our analysis of the statute on that assumption. Under Creelman v. Svenning, 67 Wash.2d 882, 885, 410 P.2d 606 (1966), a city, county, or state which employs an officer also enjoys the quasi-judicial immunity of that officer for the......
-
Musso-Escude v. Edwards
...Mitchelle v. Steele, 39 Wash.2d 473, 474, 236 P.2d 349 (1951) (following Anderson, 181 Wash. 327, 43 P.2d 39); Creelman v. Svenning, 67 Wash.2d 882, 884, 410 P.2d 606 (1966) (following Mitchelle, 39 Wash.2d 473, 236 P.2d 349, Anderson, 181 Wash. 327, 43 P.2d 39, and Yaselli, 12 F.2d 396); K......
-
Babcock v. State
...individuals in In the past, we have extended the personal immunities of some officials to the government. See Creelman v. Svenning, 67 Wash.2d 882, 410 P.2d 606 (1966) (the county and state are immune from liability for malicious prosecution); Guffey, 103 Wash.2d at 153, 690 P.2d 1163 (Stat......
-
Washington State's 45-year Experiment in Governmental Liability
...policy decisions but, because it was only a reversal of a CR 12(b)(6) motion and a remand, it had very little effect. 60. 67 Wash. 2d 882, 410 P.2d 606 61. Id. at 884, 410 P.2d at 607-08. 62. The complaint alleged not only liability for the decision to prosecute, but negligence in reviewing......
-
Table of Cases
...Ins. Co. v. Zewdu, 82 Wn. App. 620, 919 P.2d 93 (1996), review denied, 130 Wn.2d 1022 (1997): 21.3(2), 21.3(2)(a) Creelman v. Svenning, 67 Wn.2d 882, 410 P.2d 606 (1966): 20.11 Creveling v. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 142 Wn. App. 827, 177 P.3d 136, review denied, 164 Wn.2d 1024 (2008), cert.......
-
§20.6 Analysis
...had authorized the representations and warranties and whether those representations and warranties were fraudulent. Creelman v. Svenning, 67 Wn.2d 882, 410 P.2d 606 (1966). Plaintiff properly joined as defendants in a malicious prosecution action those persons who instigated the underlying ......
-
§20.7 Significant Authorities
...as defendants in a malicious prosecution action those persons who instigated the underlying criminal prosecution. Creelman v. Svenning, 67 Wn.2d 882, 410 P.2d 606 Two persons injured in one automobile accident may properly join as plaintiffs in a single suit. State ex rel. Shaffer v. Superi......