McQueary v. Atlanta Airlines Terminal Corp.
Decision Date | 10 January 1991 |
Citation | 401 S.E.2d 333,198 Ga.App. 318 |
Parties | McQUEARY v. ATLANTA AIRLINES TERMINAL CORPORATION. A90A1644. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Oliver, Duckworth, Sparger & Winkle, David P. Winkle, Jonesboro, for appellant.
Long, Weinberg, Ansley & Wheeler, James S. Strawinski, Atlanta, Yvette M. Chapman, Chamblee, for appellee.
Appellant-plaintiff brought suit against appellee-defendant, alleging claims for malicious arrest, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. The trial court granted appellee's motion for summary judgment on all claims and appellant appeals.
1. Appellant urges that a genuine issue of material fact remains as to his claims for malicious arrest and malicious prosecution.
Hatcher v. Moree, 133 Ga.App. 14(1), 209 S.E.2d 708 (1974). Accordingly, if appellee met its burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact remained as to the existence of probable cause for appellant's arrest and prosecution, the trial court correctly granted summary judgment as to those claims.
The evidence, construed most favorably for appellant, shows the following: On the date of his arrest, appellant was an airline pilot. In order to park in a special lot at the airport, he and other airline employees were required to show a valid employee identification card and to display a parking "medallion." The medallions were issued by appellee in its capacity as operator of the parking lot. Appellant had been issued medallion Number 02423. However, the medallion that was displayed on the rearview mirror of his automobile was numbered 03333. Appellant was detained at the gate to the parking lot because medallion Number 03333 had been reported as stolen. Appellant's only explanation for this suspicious circumstance was that he had been issued the displayed medallion by his employer about one month earlier. A police officer was called to the scene and, after it was determined that appellant had not been issued medallion Number 03333, he was arrested for theft by receiving stolen property. At the time of appellant's arrest, appellee was already in the process of swearing out warrants for the arrest of three others who had been found in possession of stolen medallions.
' ' (Emphasis in original.) Melton v. LaCalamito, 158 Ga.App. 820, 823-824(2b), 282 S.E.2d 393 (1981).
Since it is undisputed that appellant was in possession of the recently stolen medallion, appellee correctly contends that "it could not be said that there was no reasonable cause to believe that [appellant] was guilty of a crime." McMillan v. Day Realty Assoc., 159 Ga.App. 366, 367, 283 S.E.2d 298 (1981). Appellant, on the other hand, contends that appellee had an obligation to investigate further before actually arresting him. " Melton v. LaCalamito, supra 158 Ga.App. at 824(2b), 282 S.E.2d 393.
The evidence is undisputed that, prior to the arrest, appellee did verify that the medallion possessed by appellant had been reported stolen and that appellant had been issued a different medallion. In these circumstances, appellee was clearly not required to believe appellant's explanation that he had been issued the medallion in his possession, which explanation was in fact untrue. See Fisher v. Kentucky Fried Chicken, 175 Ga.App. 542, 545, 333 S.E.2d 877 (1985). Compare Melton v. LaCalamito, supra 158 Ga.App. at 824(2b), 282 S.E.2d 393. Insofar as appellant's explanation implies his lack of knowledge that the medallion in his possession was one which had been stolen rather than the one which had been issued to him, such a lack of knowledge Arnold v. Eckerd Drugs of Ga., 183 Ga.App. 211, 212-13, 358 S.E.2d 632 (1987). Compare Atlantic Zayre v. Meeks, 194 Ga.App. 267, 269(1), 390 S.E.2d 398 (1990). No genuine issue of material fact...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Azalea Garden Board & Care, Inc. v. Vanhoy
-
Smith v. Trust Co. Bank
...he was [arrested and] prosecuted." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) (Emphasis in original.) McQueary v. Atlanta Airlines Terminal Corp., 198 Ga.App. 318, 319(1), 401 S.E.2d 333 (1991). Upon review of the record in this case, we conclude that there was probable cause to believe that plain......
-
M.J.G., In Interest of, s. A91A2195
...they are unsupported by argument or citation of authority. See Court of Appeals Rule 15(c)(2); McQueary v. Atlanta Airlines Terminal Corp., 198 Ga.App. 318, 320(2), 401 S.E.2d 333 (1991). 5. Appellant mother's second, third and fourth enumerations are supported by one general citation regar......