According to Speiser, Kruase & Gans (134), malicious prosecution is a process of filing a lawsuit based on indecorous causes and false accusations. Such lawsuits can have criminal intents and others can be civil. In the above case study, staff members who were incarcerated unlawfully were a malicious prosecution victim that damaged his reputation and social standing. Such accusations can be intentional or have a probable cause as in the event where employees had stated to be under company supervisor as instructed.
The action therefore denotes unlawful initiation proceedings. Tort claims on the other hand often consider remedies such as prosecutions while ensuring proper legal actions. From a legal perspective, such elements have guidelines for both the prosecutor and plaintiff and they must adhere to the rules to ensure effective litigation. Even so, this paper emphasizes on liability elements to the company regarding the case study as a way of avoiding such legal measures.
The triumph of a tort claim in this case depends on specific requirements that the plaintiff must always satisfy. One of the requirements must involve the jury that the prosecution and arrest was against the plaintiff in most cases with ill intents. Secondly, Mallen affirms that it must emerge that prosecution termination and court proceedings happened in favor of the plaintiff (407).
Similarly, the plaintiff must clearly ascertain that there is no clear cause for prosecution that prevailed before incarceration. The arrest moreover must provide evidence of ill intentions from prosecutor’s side. Lastly, the plaintiff must offer prove that he suffered real damage following the arrest.
Tort of malice proceedings can be quite expensive to the image and entire company expenses. From previous details, plaintiff must provide prove that there were unreasonable causes from prosecutors side. When such is established, the following elements will be included. The company will try to find out why the prosecutor believes the defendant is guilty of the wrongdoing.
Such an assumption coming out from the case based on policies of the company cannot allow the supervisor to provide any goods on credit to its employees. The accusation also becomes stronger especially because of lack of touch I have created with the employees to make him earn my trust. Additionally, a belief must have a real foundation in possession directing to such a crime.
My case is based on finding staff members with goods against policies of the company making me learn of his theft. Such a tort may also reduce the company liability based on legal facts that such incidence was considered to be true to the best of my ability. From the actions, my engagements also depicted my convictions that the actions are not expected of our staff and the supervisor could be in a position of breaking my trust.
In other words, I trusted my supervisor therefore; I could be able to distrust one employee I have not had real contact with. Such details are factual and they prove that my prosecution actions had reasonable grounds. My company however may suffer from legal requirements of such belief to be true to an individual of ordinary prudence.
Information involving my trust and the stand of my company in this case can prove incompatible to anyone. Such requirements would also dwell mainly on company demands and requirements of any person in my position not to trust such actions for the benefit of the company.
These elements are therefore considered, and any tort of malice from the staff will be rebuffed legally.
Mallen, Ronald E. “Attorney’s Liability for Malicious Prosecution, a Misunderstood Tort, An.” Ins. Counsel J. 46 (1979): 407.
Speiser, Stuart M., Charles F. Krause, and Alfred W. Gans. The American law of torts. Thomson/West, 1983.