Sanfrantello v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
| Decision Date | 16 July 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 43722,43722,2 |
| Citation | 118 Ga.App. 205,163 S.E.2d 256 |
| Parties | Hedda H. SANFRANTELLO v. SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
Probable cause, in a suit for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, is that apparent state of facts existing after reasonable and proper inquiry. The court erred in granting summary judgment for defendants where there was a material issue of fact as to whether a reasonably prudent man would have made further investigation before prosecuting.
Hedda Sanfrantello filed this suit against Sears, Roebuck & Company and W. E. Lovitt, assistant manager of one of the corporate defendant's stores, to recover for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. Plaintiff took this appeal from the trial court's grant of summary judgment for defendants. The supporting affidavit showed that Lovitt saw plaintiff pick up two dolls and walk out of the store without paying for them. He then accosted her, found that she had placed the dolls in the trunk of her car, and took her to an office inside the store to interview her. Opposing affidavits showed that plaintiff's husband, who had entered the store with plaintiff, informed Lovitt that the dolls had been paid for and that he, the husband, had a bill of sale for them. Lovitt paid no attention to this information, but caused plaintiff to be arrested and prosecuted for shoplifting.
Richard T. Cowan, Savannah, Jerrell T. Hendrix, Brunswick, for appellant.
Conyers, Fendig, Dickey & Harris, J. Thomas Whelchel, Brunswick, for appellee.
1. On motion for summary judgment, the movant has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact, and the opposing party is given the benefit of all reasonable doubts and all favorable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence. Holland v. Sanfax Corp., 106 Ga.App. 1, 4, 126 S.E.2d 442; International Brotherhood v. Newman, 116 Ga.App. 590, 592, 158 S.E.2d 298. The movant Colonial Stores Inc. v. Turner, 117 Ga.App. 331, 333, 160 S.E.2d 672, 674; 6 Moore's Federal Practice (2d Ed.) 2853, § 56.23.
In a suit for malicious prosecution, the gravamen of the action is the want of probable cause on the part of the person instituting the prosecution. Tanner-Brice Co. v. Barrs, 55 Ga.App. 453, 454(5), 190 S.E. 676; Barber v. Addis, 113 Ga.App. 806(1), 149 S.E.2d 833. 'Probable cause does not depend upon the actual state of the case in point of fact, but upon the honest and reasonable belief of the party commencing the prosecution, and * * * the reasonable and probable cause...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Sheffield
...1, 4, 126 S.E.2d 442; International Brotherhood, etc. v. Newman, 116 Ga.App. 590, 592, 158 S.E.2d 298; Sanfrantello v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 118 Ga.App. 205, 206, 163 S.E.2d 256. Here movant failed to carry the burden on this matter and the trial court was authorized to deny the motion as t......
-
Standard Oil Co. v. Harris, s. 44523
...have dealt with in connection with the motion, and its failure to do so leaves the question unresolved. Sanfrantello v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 118 Ga.App. 205, 163 S.E.2d 256; Colonial Stores, Inc. v. Turner, 117 Ga.App. 331, 333, 160 S.E.2d But if it be conceded that a defect in constructio......
-
Continental Assur. Co. v. Rothell
...106 Ga.App. 1, 4, 126 S.E.2d 442; Colonial Stores, Inc. v. Turner, 117 Ga.App. 331, 333, 160 S.E.2d 672; Sanfrantello v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 118 Ga.App. 205, 163 S.E.2d 256. ...
-
Nicholl v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
...329, 335(2), 45 S.E.2d 827 (1947); see also Coleman v. Allen, 79 Ga. 637, 640-642, 5 S.E. 204 (1888); Sanfrantello v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 118 Ga.App. 205, 207, 163 S.E.2d 256 (1968). If a reasonable person would have investigated to determine if probable cause existed prior to swearing ou......