Summary
holding that in an action for malicious prosecution against a private individual, proof that the defendant initiated or procured the institution of the underlying criminal proceedings is an essential element, and failure to satisfy it will defeat the plaintiff's claim
Summary of this case from Lefebvre v. ZarkaOpinion
Argued October 7, 1971
Decided October 27, 1971
Action to recover damages for alleged malicious prosecution, brought to the Court of Common Pleas in New Haven County and tried to the jury before O'Brien, J.; verdict and judgment for the defendant and appeal by the plaintiff. No error.
Thomas F. Brown, with whom, on the brief, was Vincent F. Villano, for the appellant (plaintiff)
Peter C. Dorsey, for the appellee (defendant).
This is an action for malicious prosecution in which the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. The court's memorandum of decision denying the plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict stated that the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, "failed to disclose that the defendant had `procured' the arrest of the plaintiff. . . . There was no intimation in the evidence that the defendant expressed a desire that the plaintiff should be arrested, requested that the plaintiff be arrested or insisted upon it. A person is deemed to have initiated a proceeding if his direction or request, or pressure of any kind by him, was the determining factor in the officer's (or prosecutor's) decision to commence the prosecution. Zenik v. O'Brien, 137 Conn. 592, 596 [ 79 A.2d 769]. The plaintiff's proof was lacking in this essential element."
The record discloses that this observation by the trial court was correct. It is unnecessary to discuss the remaining assignments of error.