Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-4053 civilSTERLING K. MOLL, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MANARD TODD AMBROSE, DEFENDANT IN RE: 96-4053 CIVIL TERM MOTION OF DEFENDANT FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEFORE BAYLEY, J. AND OLER, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Bayley, J., December 3, '1999:-- Plaintiff, Sterling K. Moll, filed a complaint against defendant, Manard Todd Ambrose, alleging malicious prosecution. The claim arises out of a summary citation issued to plaintiff by defendant, a police officer, under Section 3334(a) of the Vehicle Code, that provides: Upon a roadway no person shall turn a vehicle or move from one traffic lane to another or enter the traffic stream from a parked position unless and until the movement can be made with reasonable safety nor without giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in this section. Plaintiff was found guilty of the violation by a District Justice. In a trial de novo in this court before Hess, J., he was found not guilty2 ' Defendant Ambrose testified in both trials. In reaching a verdict, Judge Hess stated: "... [I] have some conclusions about this case, one of which is that no one here has told me an intentional falsehood. Of that I am absolutely positive. It is clear that everyone saw the same thing, but perceived it very differently .... " 96-4053 CIVIL TERM Defendant has moved for summary judgment ,~,hich was briefed and argued on October 13, 1999. In Washington v. Ba×~er, 719 A.2d 733 (Pa. 1998), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania set forth the standard for deciding a motion for summary judgment: [w]e must view the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party. Pennsylvania State University v. County of Centre, 532 Pa. 142, 143-145, 615 A.2d 303, 304 (1992). In order to withstand a motion for summary judgment, a non-moving party 'must adduce sufficient evidence on an issue essential to his case and on which he bears the burden of proof such that a jury could return a verdict in his favor. Failure to adduce this evidence establishes that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.' Ertel v. Patriot-News Co., 544 Pa. 93, 101-102,674 A.2d 1038, 1042 (1996). Finally, we must stress that summary judgment will be granted only in those cases which are free and clear from doubt. Marks v. Tasman, 527 Pa. 132, 589 A.2d 205 (1991). (Emphasis added.) In Dietrich, Inc-. v. Abrams, 309 Pa. Super. 202 (1982), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania set forth the elements necessary to sustain an action for malicious prosecution: (1) the underlying proceedings terminated favorably to the plaintiff, (2) defendant caused the criminal proceedings to be instituted without probable cause, and (3) defendant acted with malice. Plaintiff has the burden of proving lack of probable cause. Cosmas v. Bloomingdale's Bros., Inc., 442 Pa. Super. 476 (1995). Certain instances exist which provide conclusive evidence of probable cause. In Cosmas, the Superior Court stated that: [o]ne such instance of conclusiveness is plaintiff's conviction in the underlying criminal action. Even if the conviction is later overturned, it is -2- 96-4053 CIVIL TERM conclusive proof of the existence of probauie cause, unless the convicted party can show fraud or other ,.Indue in~iuencgs at work in the conviction proceedings. See also Restatement of Torts, 2d § 667(1) (1976).2 In the case sub judice, there is conclusive evidence that defendant, who filed the summary citation against plaintiff on information received, had probable cause to initiate the prosecution because plaintiff was found guilty of the summary offense by a District Justice. We have examined the record and find no evidence sufficient to submit an issue to a jury that the conviction was obtained by fraud, perjury or other corrupt means. Accordingly, the following order is entered. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ~ day of December, 1999, the motion of defendant for summary judgment, IS GRANTED. Edgar B. Bayley, Section 667(1) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts provides: The conviction of the accused by a magistrate or trial court, although reversed by an appellate tribunal, conclusively establishes the existence of probable cause, unless the conviction was obtained by fraud, perjury or other corrupt means. -3- 96-4053 CIVIL TERM Sterling K. Moll, Pro se 518 North Second Street Wromleysburg, PA 17043 David J. Lanza, Esquire For Defendant :saa -4-