Smithfield Packing Co., Inc. v. Evely

DAVIS, J. AppellanVCross-Appellee, Smithfield Packing Company, Inc., appeals from a verdict rendered by a jury in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, on its claim of malicious ⁵⁸² prosecution, in favor of appellee/cross-appellant, Kenneth Moore. The jury awarded Moore $560,523 in compensatory damages and $1,000,000 in punitive damages. The compensatory damage award included $52,947 in lost wages and $2,971 in interest on lost wages. The balance of the award was for non-economic compensatory damages.

The court granted a remittitur reducing Moore’s non-economic compensatory damages award to $304,605 and his punitive damages award to $200,000. The court granted appellant’s motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV) on the jury award of lost wages and interest on lost wages. Appellees/cross-appellants (hereinafter “Evely” and “Moore”) filed a cross appeal from the trial court’s order granting appellant’s motion for JNOV on the jury’s award of lost wages, Moore and Evely’s claim for abusive discharge, and the remittitur reducing the compensatory and punitive damages award. The appellees filed a four count complaint on June 5, 2002 against appellant alleging malicious prosecution (Count 1), defamation (Count II), abusive discharge (Count III), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count IV).

Appellant, on July 29, 2002, filed a motion to dismiss Counts II, III, and IV; the court granted the motion as to Count II, but denied it as to counts III and IV. On March 7, 2003, appellant filed a motion for summary judgment on the three remaining counts, which was denied on April 24, 2003. The case proceeded to trial on June 23, 2003. Following a four-day trial, on June 26, 2003, the jury returned verdicts in favor of Evely and Moore.

The jury found for Evely on Counts III and IV of the complaint, awarding damages in the amount of $308,716, and for Moore on Counts I, III, and IV and awarded damages in the amount of $488,601. 1 The trial court refused to submit the issue of punitive damages to the jury because appellees were unable to prove the financial condition of appellant, pursuant to this ⁵⁸³ Court’s decision in Fraidin v. Weitzman, 93 Md.App. 168 , 611 A.2d 1046 (1992). Appellees filed a post-trial motion, requesting a new trial on the issue of punitive damages, while appellant submitted a post-trial motion for JNOV as to all three counts of the complaint. A hearing was held on the post-trial motions on April 23, 2004. The trial court granted appellant’s motion for JNOV as to counts III and IV for both parties, ending the litigation with respect to Evely; however, it denied the motion on Moore’s verdict for malicious prosecution.

On June 8, 2004, the court issued an Order granting Moore a new trial on Count I for malicious prosecution on the underlying tort claim and the claim for punitive damages. In its order, the court states: The Court has reviewed the Issue of the Malicious Prosecution Count and re-reviewed the testimony concerning the March 5th encounter [2] with Moore. The Court did not comply with Montgomery Ward v. Wilson, 339 Md. 701 , 664 A.2d 916 (1995), frankly because the Court was unaware of this requirement and neither counsel made such a suggestion. In essence, it is incumbent upon the Court in a malicious prosecution case, where the issue of probable cause or lack thereof is disputed to outline for the jury the various contentions and instruct the jury as to what constitutes and does not constitute probable cause.

After trial the Court is now aware of the wisdom behind the rule. Post-Trial the Court must now attempt to piece together what the jury could have concluded from the various factual contentions. The Court frankly would be in the position of guessing and does not believe that justice would be served. Accordingly, the Court will grant a new trial to Moore with respect to the issue of Malicious Prosecution both as to the underlying tort and any damages purportedly sustained. ⁵⁸⁴ The court granted the motion for a new trial on the issue of punitive damages because post-trial, but prior to ruling on the motions, the Court of Appeals decided Darcars Motors of Silver Springs, Inc. v. Borzym, 379 Md. 249 , 841 A.2d 828 (2004), which the court found effectively overruled Fraidin, supra, and permitted the issue of punitive damages to be decided by a jury, without first being presented evidence concerning the financial condition of the defendant.

In the second trial, which was held on November 8-10, 2004, the jury found in favor of Moore. On November 29, 2004, appellant filed a motion for JNOV, which was opposed by appellee and a hearing was held on March 22, 2005. The court granted the motion for JNOV only as to Moore’s award of lost wages, in the amount of $52,947 and interest in the amount of $2,971 and remitted and reduced the compensatory damage and punitive damage awards as stated, supra. The court reserved entering its final order to permit the parties to attempt to resolve the dispute through Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and pending Moore’s acceptance of the remittance.

Appellee filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s June 8, 2004 grant of appellant’s motion for JNOV as to the abusive discharge claims. The court denied the motion for reconsideration on May 16, 2005. Moore accepted the remittance and the court entered a final judgment in the case. Appellant filed this timely appeal, presenting four issues for our review, which we quote: 1.

Whether Moore established that Smithfield Packing instituted or continued criminal proceedings by providing false information, by giving inaccurate information, or by withholding information bearing on the decision to prosecute? 2. Whether Moore established that Smithfield Packing lacked probable cause to institute or continue criminal proceedings against Moore? 3. Whether Moore established that Smithfield Packing possessed the requisite malice in instituting criminal proceedings? ⁵⁸⁵ 4. Whether Moore proved by clear and convincing evidence that Smithfield Packing was motivated by actual malice in instituting the criminal proceedings, so as to support punitive damages?

Appellees/cross-appellants present three questions for review. 1. Did the court err when it granted JNOV to Smithfield on the jury’s award of lost wages and interest on lost wages proximately caused by Smithfield’s malicious prosecution and subsequent termination of Mr. Moore’s employment? 2. Did the court err when it granted a remittitur of the jury’s award of noneconomic damages and a reduction of the jury’s award of punitive damages without giving any reasons or rationale? 3. Did the court err when, after the first trial, it granted Smithfield’s motion for JNOV on Mr. Moore’s and Mr. Evely’s claims of abusive discharge?

We hold that the evidence was insufficient to sustain Moore’s claim for malicious prosecution because, when the evidence is viewed in a light most favorable to appellees, appellant had probable cause to believe that Moore was involved in a theft. Consequently, we reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County in favor of appellee. Our decision renders appellant’s third and fourth questions, as well as appellees’ first and second questions, moot; therefore, those questions will not be addressed in this opinion. Appellees’ third assignment of error is dismissed.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND In November of 2000, appellant, believing that it may be the victim of employee theft at its Landover, Maryland facility, initiated an investigation. The investigation commenced on November 6, 2000 and continued until January 12, 2001 and was conducted by appellant’s Head of Security, Danny Priest. As part of the investigation, Priest employed the services of William Britt to work undercover at the Landover facility as ⁵⁸⁶ an employee in the shipping department. The record reveals that nine individuals were prosecuted by appellant for theft as a result of appellant’s investigation, including Evely and Moore.

Moore and Evely were accused of theft as a result of an incident which occurred on December 18, 2000. Moore was employed as a truck driver by Smithfield and Evely as a shipping supervisor, at the Landover facility. On December 18, 2000, Moore arrived at the Landover facility to collect his shipment for transport to New Jersey. During a conversation with Evely, he was informed that his shipment was short two cases and he would have to attach the trailer to the truck and bring it back to the dock to have the cases loaded.

Because Moore was in a hurry to go to dinner, he apparently did not want to connect the trailer and then disconnect it again before leaving for dinner, only to have to repeat the process before transporting the shipment. Evely then instructed two shipping employees, Britt and Thomas Perry (the latter having been one of the employees prosecuted for theft) to assist Moore in loading the two cases of hams into his tractor. After loading the cases in the tractor, Moore pulled away from the loading dock. The testimony of Priest revealed that the procedure was, as the products are being loaded onto the truck, the boxes are scanned and their location on the truck is marked on the load sheet.

Once a load is complete, the trailer is sealed and moved to the yard to await transport. The undercover investigator, Britt, reported the incident by calling Priest and relaying the information, which Priest wrote down and later typed into his investigation report. 3 The report stated the following: ⁵⁸⁷ Supervisor Ransom Everly [sic] gets (2) cases of hams and ask U.C. and Thomas Perry to take to door # 5 and give to driver. U.C. observed driver (later identified as Kenneth Moore) pull up in truck tractor # 653192 (bobtail) 4 between two trailers and take the (2) boxes and put them into the cab of his truck. The driver said to U.C. and Thomas Perry his load was (2) boxes short.

Priest also testified that he reviewed the paperwork for Moore’s load and his review did not show it to be two cases short; that placing the cases in the cab of the truck was a violation of procedure for food safety; and that Britt reported that it was nighttime and Moore did not have any lights on when he positioned the bobtail between the two trucks. Priest stated that, “in view of the paper work and all these things combined, it was very suspicious activity to say the least.” Further testimony by Moore, however, revealed facts that Britt could not have known from his position as an undercover agent working on the docks. Moore testified that Evely met him at the trailer, which was parked out in the yard where all the trailers are staged when they are ready for shipping, and loaded the two cases of hams into his trailer, closed and sealed the door and the two men went their separate ways. Evely’s testimony at trial was consistent.

He testified: I had told [Mr. Jones] [5] it was two cases damaged on the load that was prestaging that load that day. And when the truck turned out, supposed [sic] to carry it to take that load out, that’s when we load the truck, and I discovered it was two eases damaged. So I had to remove it from the pallet and sent [sic] it back to the packing room to get reboxed. Evely continued stating that he instructed the “loaders” to put the boxes on Moore’s truck.

He further testified: ⁵⁸⁸ When Ken was—I was checking in about the load number. Then I know that was his load and I told him that its still two boxes still belong to that truck. You know, I told them to get the two boxes to get on his truck. I told him to get the trailer to bring it onto the docking, the trailer staging area for quite a while.

And he just told me he was going to lunch. That he didn’t want to hook up twice. So I told him to throw them and carry them on the truck to put them on the trailer. Well, he said he didn’t want to drop the trailer twice so I just told him to throw them in the cab of the truck.

They just gave Kenny the boxes. And I walked through the warehouse, you know, where the trailer was in the trailer staging area. I popped the seal on it, he backed up to it and I put the boxes in the trailer and I just sealed the trailer and give [sic] him the paperwork and went on about my business. Priest, during his testimony, also discussed the paperwork he reviewed, including the bill of lading, the log book at the gate (which tracks the incoming and outgoing vehicles), the loader sheet and the invoice.

According to Priest, the paperwork reviewed did not support Moore’s explanation that the load was two cases short and the cases had been placed in the trailer out in the yard. It was revealed on cross-examination that some of the documents contained errors. For example, the seal number, which is placed on the trailer after it is loaded—and prior to it being moved to the yard—was written on the bill of lading, but was not recorded on the loader sheet, which is completed as the truck is being loaded. Additionally, the guard log, which Priest testified did not show that Moore left the facility bobtail to get something to eat, also contained several errors in recording other incoming and outgoing vehicles. ⁵⁸⁹ On January 10, 2001, in conjunction with the Prince George’s County Police Department, a sting operation was conducted at the Landover Maryland facility.

Three of the nine employees charged with larceny were observed stealing from the facility. Neither Moore or Evely was observed. A final report, prepared by Priest, on January 25, 2001, detailing the investigation into the thefts at the Landover facility was turned over to Detective Teletchea of the Prince George’s County Police Department. The report, among other things, provides that the type of case is larceny, that the status is charges pending, that the surveillance was performed by himself and Loss Prevention Specialist Chris O’Brient and that the charge against each individual is larceny.

Each of the employees identified in Priest’s report, except Evely and Moore, was fired on January 11, 2001, following the sting operation. Evely was suspended on January 11, 2001, following a meeting with Jones, where he explained the events of December 18, 2000, consistent with his testimony, and no action was taken with respect to Moore at that time. Evely, however, was later terminated, on February 5, 2001. Notwithstanding that Jones was in possession of Priest’s January 25, 2001 report, the reason for Evely’s termination was not theft, but inadequate supervision.

By February 27, 2001, charges had been filed by the Prince George’s County Police Department against all nine individuals named in Priest’s report. The statement of charges was filed by Detective Teletchea, without having conducted any further independent investigation into the matter. The statement of charges provided: [O]n or about December 18, 2000 at 5801 Columbia Pike Rd. Landover, Prince George’s Coutny [sic], Maryland, the above named Defendant was employed as a truck driver for Smithfield Packing Co. The defendant Mr. Kenneth Moore took two boxes of hams valued at $249.00.

The defendant took the hams from the grounds of the plant without paying for them. The theft was observed by Mr. Chris O’Briant a loss prevention officer for the company. The hams taken are the property of Smithfield Packing Co. and are the ⁵⁹⁰ responsibility of Mr. Danny Priest. All events occurred in Prince George’s County, Maryland.

On March 5, 2001, Moore was called to Tarheel, North Carolina for a meeting with Randy Svitak, the head of the transportation department and Moore’s supervisor. No one had contacted Moore between the date of the incident and the meeting. Priest was also present at the meeting and testified that he understood the purpose of the meeting was to suspend Moore based on the theft allegations. Priest also stated that he did not call the meeting, but only took Moore’s statement, which was consistent with the testimony of both Moore and Evely and that he recorded the statement and provided Moore with an opportunity to correct any errors and to sign the statement.

Moore was suspended at the March 5, 2001 meeting. He testified that he was told “you probably will be placed on suspension until further investigation.” When asked whether he had been informed about the charges that had been filed on February 27, 2001, Moore replied that he had not been informed and stated: “[Priest] said you are suspended until further investigation. You will probably be charged?” Moore did not receive the documents indicating he had been charged with theft until April 3, 2001. Moore also testified that, at the March 5, 2001 meeting, in exchange for not being terminated, he was asked by Priest to admit that Evely had given him the cases of hams.

Specifically, Moore stated: When I got to the door, he said you haven’t been in trouble before, have you? I said no. You never been prosecuted? I said no.

He said, well, if you go ahead and admit that Ransom gave you the ham, I’ll save your job. I told him that I will not lie for Smithfield. Priest denied ever having made the offer to Moore. Moore was terminated by Smithfield on September 12, 2001, effective March 2, 2001, the date of his suspension for “violation of shop rules section 1.” Evely’s case proceeded to trial and, on June 6, 2001, the District Court of Maryland for Prince George’s County en ⁵⁹¹ tered a nolle prosequi in the case.

Moore’s case proceeded to trial and, on September 10, 2001, the court entered a judgement of acquittal. Additional facts will be provided. STANDARD OF REVIEW Under Maryland Rule 2-519(a) “A party may move for judgment on any or all of the issues in any action at the close of the evidence offered by an opposing party, and in a jury trial at the close of all the evidence.” Subsection (b) of the Rule discusses the disposition of the motion. That section provides: When a defendant moves for judgment at the close of the evidence offered by the plaintiff in an action tried by the court, the court may proceed, as the trier of fact, to determine the facts and to render judgment against the plaintiff or may decline to render judgment until the close of all the evidence.

When a motion for judgment is made under any other circumstances, the court shall consider all evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made. See also Spengler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 163 Md.App. 220, 235 , 878 A.2d 628 (2005). The motion in this case was made during a jury trial; therefore, according to the Rule, the trial court, in deciding the motion, was to consider the evidence and inferences therefrom in a light most favorable to appellee. In reviewing a grant or a denial of a motion for judgment, we apply the same analysis as the trial court.

See University of Baltimore v. Iz, 123 Md.App. 135, 149 , 716 A.2d 1107 (1998); Spengler, 163 Md.App. at 235 , 878 A.2d 628 . “We consider all the evidence, including the inferences reasonable and logically drawn therefrom, in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Iz, 123 Md.App. at 149 , 716 A.2d 1107 (citing Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Tufts, 118 Md.App. 180, 189 , 702 A.2d 422 (1997)); see also Spengler, 163 Md.App. at 235 , 878 A.2d 628 (“we ‘assume the truth of all credible evidence on the issue, and all fairly deducible inferences therefrom, in light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is ⁵⁹² made.’ ”) (citations omitted); Houston v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 346 Md. 503, 521 , 697 A.2d 851 (1997)(“When reviewing a judgment n.o.v., ‘this Court must resolve all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the plaintiff and must assume the truth of all evidence and inferences as may naturally and legitimately be deduced therefrom which tend to support the plaintiffs right to recover—that is, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.’ ”) (citations omitted). This standard also applies to our review of a motion for Judgment n.o.v. Iz, 123 Md.App. at 149 , 716 A.2d 1107 (citations omitted).

Thus, “ ‘[i]f there is any legally relevant and competent evidence, however slight, from which a rational mind could infer a fact in issue, then a trial court would be invading the province of the jury by declaring a directed verdict.’” Houston, 346 Md. at 521 , 697 A.2d 851 (citing Impala Platinum v. Impala Sales, 283 Md. 296 , 389 A.2d 887 (1978)); see also Iz, 123 Md.App. at 149 , 716 A.2d 1107 (where the evidence is “legally sufficient to generate a jury question, we may affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion.”). The opposite is also true, i.e., where the evidence is not sufficient to generate a jury question, or stated differently when the evidence “permits but one conclusion, the question is one of law and the motion must be granted.” Iz, 123 Md.App. at 149 , 716 A.2d 1107 citing James v. General Motors Corp., 74 Md.App. 479, 484 , 538 A.2d 782 (1988); see Houston, 346 Md. at 521 , 697 A.2d 851 , Spengler, 163 Md.App. at 235 , 878 A.2d 628 . LEGAL ANALYSIS The gravamen of appellant’s complaint is that the evidence was not legally sufficient to sustain appellees’ claim for malicious prosecution. Appellant states that, of the four elements of the complaint, see Exxon Corp. v. Kelly, 281 Md. 689, 693 , 381 A.2d 1146 (1978), appellee has only satisfied the fourth, i.e., that he was acquitted of the charges filed against him.

In order to prevail on a claim for malicious prosecution, it must be established that (a) the defendant instituted or ⁵⁹³ continued criminal proceedings against the plaintiff, (b) the defendant lacked probable cause for the proceedings, (c) there was “malice” or a primary purpose in instituting the proceedings other than that of bringing an offender to justice, (d) the proceedings ended in a favorable result for the plaintiff. Id. At the outset, we note that appellant makes no claim that the court improperly instructed the jury on the issues. I MALICIOUS PROSECUTION A. INITIATION OR CONTINUATION OF PROCEEDINGS Appellant claims that Moore failed to prove that it initiated the criminal proceedings.

Appellant argues that it merely provided complete and accurate information to the police, which does not constitute the initiation of criminal proceedings. Appellant also contends that its failure to turn over Moore’s March 5, 2001 statement to the police, does not support Moore’s theory that it continued the prosecution against him. We have enunciated the basis for a finding that a defendant initiated the proceedings in the context of malicious prosecution in Wood v. Palmer Ford, Inc., 47 Md.App. 692 , 425 A.2d 671 (1981), aff'd. in part and rev’d in part, 298 Md. 484 , 471 A.2d 297 (1984). Where a party instigates, aides or assist in a criminal prosecution he/she may be liable even where he/she did not swear out a warrant.

Wood, 47 Md.App. at 701 , 425 A.2d 671 (citing Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Barrack, 210 Md. 168, 174 , 122 A.2d 457 (1956)). A person may also be liable if he/she has “instituted, instigated or inspired in any fashion a criminal proceeding against the (plaintiff) within the contemplation of the law of torts.” Id. at 701-02, 425 A.2d 671 (citing Brewer v. Mele, 267 Md. 437 , 298 A.2d 156 (1972)). It is also well settled that a defendant may not be held liable for malicious prosecution for relying upon the independent judgment of a prosecutor or attorney where the defendant has ⁵⁹⁴ made a full disclosure of all material facts relative to the charges being made. Brown v. Dart Drug Corp., 77 Md.App. 487, 493 , 551 A.2d 132 (1989)(citing Gladding Chevrolet, Inc. v. Fowler, 264 Md. 499 , 287 A.2d 280 (1972)).

In Dart Drug Corp., the Court considered whether summary judgment was properly granted in favor of appellee (Dart Drug) against appellant (Brown) on her claim of malicious prosecution. Id. at 489, 551 A.2d 132 . Brown claimed that Dart Drug failed to turn over exculpatory statements to police after asking the police to initiate an investigation and furnishing the police with information tending to indicate Brown committed theft. Id.

A theft at a Dart Drug store was investigated by two investigators from Dart Drug’s internal investigations unit. Id. at 489-90 , 551 A.2d 132 . The investigators interviewed and took statements from a number of employees, then turned over the investigation to the police. Id. at 490 , 551 A.2d 132 .

The investigators only turned over the statements of two of the four employee’s interviewed. Later, the investigators were contacted by another employee, Forrester, who gave an exculpatory statement concerning Brown, which the investigators did not turn over to the police. Id. Dart Drug contended that the police commenced the action against Brown based upon an independent investigation of the theft.

Id. at 491 , 551 A.2d 132 . The police had in fact conducted an independent investigation, but did not interview Forrester because she was not made known to them. Id. at 490-91 , 551 A.2d 132 . The Court reversed the grant of summary judgment, holding: Dart Drug denies responsibility and avers that Detective Frohlich commenced the criminal action against Ms. Brown based on his independent investigation.

In Wood v. Palmer Ford, 47 Md.App. 692, 700-01 , 425 A.2d 671 (1981), aff'd. in part and rev’d. in part, 298 Md. 484 , 471 A.2d 297 (1984), Judge Orth cited Prosser, Law of Torts (4th ed.1971) p. 836-7, for the proposition that: ⁵⁹⁵ The defendant may be liable either for initiating or for continuing a criminal prosecution without probable cause. But he cannot be held responsible unless he takes some active part in instigating or encouraging the prosecution. He is not liable merely because of his approval or silent acquiescence in the acts of another, nor for appearing as a witness against the accused, even though his testimony is perjured, since the necessities of a free trial demand that witnesses are not to be deterred by fear of tort suits, and shall be immune from liability. On the other hand, if he advises or assists another person to begin the proceedings, ratified it when it is begun in his behalf, or takes any active part in directing or aiding the conduct of the case, he will be responsible.

The question of information laid before prosecuting authorities has arisen in many cases. If the defendant merely states what he believes, leaving the decision to prosecute entirely to the uncontrolled discretion of the officer, or if the officer makes an independent investigation, or prosecutes for an offense other than the one charged by the defendant, the latter is not regarded as having instigated the proceeding; but if it is found that his persuasion was the determining factor in inducing the officer’s decision, or that he gave information which he knew to be false and so unduly influenced the authorities, he may be held liable, (footnotes omitted). In the case at bar, Dart Drug directly aided the conduct of the police investigation by examining witnesses and taking statements. The manager, Stanley Klutz, filed a Crimes Against Property report the same day that the money was discovered missing and listed Kellie Brown as the number one suspect.

Of the five statements that were taken by Dart Drug investigators, only two were furnished to Detective Frohlich. Most importantly, neither the exculpatory statement executed by Ms. Forrester nor Ms. Forrester’s identity was ever made known to the police. It is settled law that a civil defendant may not avoid liability for malicious prosecution by relying on