Smith v. Trust Co. Bank
| Decision Date | 02 December 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. A94A1093,A94A1093 |
| Citation | 215 Ga.App. 413,450 S.E.2d 866 |
| Parties | SMITH et al. v. TRUST COMPANY BANK et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Lawrence E. Diamond, Atlanta, for appellants.
Kirwan, Goger, Chesin & Parks, P. Bruce Kirwan, Ed J. Novotny, Freeman & Hawkins, William H. Major III, Atlanta, for appellees.
Plaintiff Curtis Smith brought suit against his former employer, defendant Genuine Parts Co., d/b/a Rayloc (Rayloc), and defendant Trust Company Bank (Trust Company), alleging malicious prosecution, false arrest, libel, slander and negligence. Additionally, plaintiff's wife, Carrie Smith, asserted a claim for loss of consortium. The trial court granted defendants' motions for summary judgment on all claims, and plaintiff and his wife appeal.
On or about February 26, 1991, Trust Company was notified by account holder Robert Lee Smith, an employee of Rayloc, that an unidentified person had forged his signature and cashed his Rayloc paycheck. Upon preliminary investigation, Trust Company identified the check in question and obtained surveillance photographs which it believed were taken at the time the forged check was cashed. These photographs, along with canceled checks and the teller tape for February 21, 1991, indicated that on said date three Rayloc paychecks were cashed within approximately a ninety-seven second period. Specifically, a check made out to Richard Lewis Hines and endorsed by Hines and plaintiff was date-stamped as being cashed at 12:09 p.m. Plaintiff's paycheck was date-stamped at 12:11 p.m. and was endorsed by plaintiff. The forged check also was date-stamped at 12:11 p.m. and contained only the forged signature of Robert Lee Smith. The record shows that these checks also were marked on the back by the bank teller who had cashed them with a number indicating the sequence in which they were presented.
All of the above information was given to Trust Company's security department where it was assigned to one of the bank's investigators, Gene Sorrells. According to Sorrells, he contacted Rayloc's manager and was told that the manager believed that a Rayloc employee must have perpetrated the theft and forgery of the check in question. Upon review of the surveillance photographs, Sorrells determined that there was approximately a five minute discrepancy between the precise time the forged check was cashed and the time printed on the photographs themselves. However, upon review of the photographs in their correct time sequence it is undisputed that Sorrells came to the conclusion that one of two men pictured at the time the check was presented was the perpetrator. The record shows that Sorrells asked the teller who cashed the check if she could identify either of the two men. The teller was only able to identify plaintiff, whom she said she recognized as a Rayloc employee. Moreover, the bank teller informed Sorrells that she would not have cashed a Rayloc paycheck for an individual who was not the named payee unless she personally knew the individual cashing the check was an employee of Rayloc. The record also shows that during his investigation Sorrells met with at least two Rayloc management employees, who also identified plaintiff as a Rayloc employee. Sorrells testified that at this point he believed he had conducted as thorough an investigation as he could as a bank employee, and that any further investigation required the participation of law enforcement personnel.
On March 26, 1991, Sorrells filed a report with Detective Brumbelow of the Atlanta Police Department and provided Brumbelow with the results of the bank's investigation. The record shows that Brumbelow, a 30-year police veteran, reviewed the information and discussed the matter with Sorrells, and then decided that there was sufficient information to issue an arrest warrant. Brumbelow testified that the decision as to whether to seek an arrest warrant rested with the Atlanta Police Department, and that having determined that probable cause existed, he sought and obtained a warrant for plaintiff's arrest from the Atlanta Municipal Court.
Shortly after obtaining the warrant, Brumbelow, Sorrells and several Rayloc management employees met with plaintiff in a closed office at the Rayloc warehouse. Plaintiff was questioned about the incident and denied having forged and cashed Robert Smith's paycheck. Plaintiff also claims that during the questioning he informed Brumbelow and Sorrells that the man behind him in the photographs also was a Rayloc employee and that they should investigate him. It is undisputed that after plaintiff was questioned he was arrested by Detective Brumbelow. Plaintiff was read his rights, handcuffed and taken out of the office to Brumbelow's police car. The record also shows that plaintiff was fired by Rayloc after being arrested.
It is undisputed that on April 3, 1991, plaintiff and his attorney waived plaintiff's right to a preliminary probable cause hearing. It also is undisputed that plaintiff was indicted on the charge of forgery in the first degree on May 3, 1991. On October 28, 1991, the district attorney nolle prossed the case, dismissing the charges against plaintiff. Approximately one year later, on October 27, 1992, plaintiff and his wife filed suit against Trust Company and Rayloc. Trust Company and Rayloc both filed motions for summary judgment and on November 1, 1993, the trial court granted their motions.
1. In their first enumeration plaintiff and his wife argue that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Trust Company and Rayloc as to the false arrest and malicious prosecution claims. Specifically, they contend that there are genuine issues of material fact regarding the existence of malice and lack of probable cause in this case. We disagree.
El-Amin v. Trust Co. Bank, 171 Ga.App. 35, 37, 318 S.E.2d 655 (1984). "Probable cause is absent when the circumstances would satisfy a reasonable person that the accuser had no ground for proceeding except a desire to injure the accused." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Garmon v. Warehouse Groceries Food Center, 207 Ga.App. 89, 92(2), 427 S.E.2d 308 (1993). (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Barber v. H & H Muller Enterprises, 197 Ga.App. 126, 129(2)(b), 397 S.E.2d 563 (1990). In determining whether probable cause existed in this case, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turnage v. Kasper.
...472(2), 86 S.E.2d 11 (1955) (same). 42. See, e.g., Roberts, 210 Ga.App. at 11–12(1), 435 S.E.2d 227; cf. Smith v. Trust Co. Bank, 215 Ga.App. 413, 417(2), 450 S.E.2d 866 (1994) (holding that employer is not liable for slanderous utterances of its employees without evidence that the employer......
-
Adams v. Carlisle
...agent was expressly directed or authorized to slander the plaintiff." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Smith v. Trust Co. Bank, 215 Ga.App. 413, 416(2), 450 S.E.2d 866 (1994). 31. (Citation and footnote omitted.) Wolter v. Wal-Mart Stores, 253 Ga.App. 524, 526-527, 559 S.E.2d 483 32. See......
-
Jaudon v. Sasser
...would "excite the belief in a reasonable mind that plaintiff was guilty of the crime for which he was arrested." Smith v. Tr. Co. Bank, 450 S.E.2d 866, 869 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994) (emphasis original). Moreover, it is undisputed that a grand jury indicted Plaintiff on two charges of making false......
-
Pombert v. Glock, Inc.
...Corp. v. Coker, 261 Ga. 745, 746, 410 S.E.2d 425 (1991).44 Tate, 231 Ga.App. at 834, 499 S.E.2d 72 (quoting Smith v. Trust Co. Bank, 215 Ga.App. 413, 416, 450 S.E.2d 866 (1994) ).45 Fleming v. U–Haul Co. of Ga., 246 Ga.App. 681, 683, 541 S.E.2d 75 (2000) (quoting Hicks v. Brantley, 102 Ga. ......