Because the plaintiff’s damages resulted from her wrongful arrests, the gravamen of her complaint was malicious prosecution.
In Jacobi v. VendEngine Inc., No. M2023-01459-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2025), the defendant operated a messaging system for inmates. When a person sent a message through this system, he or she could input their own email and/or phone number with no check for accuracy and no log in process.
On two occasions, someone purporting to be the plaintiff sent a message through this system threatening an inmate. The defendant provided these messages to the local police, who arrested the plaintiff on both occasions. The charges in both instances were eventually dropped.
The plaintiff filed this suit, alleging that the defendant’s “negligent design and operation” of the messaging system led to her wrongful arrests and emotional damages. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment in which it argued that the plaintiff’s complaint was actually a complaint for malicious prosecution, and that the plaintiff could not prove the elements of that tort. Although the trial court initially granted summary judgment on the malicious prosecution claim but allowed “remaining claims” to continue, it later granted the summary judgment motion and dismissed the complaint as a whole after ruling that “the gravamen of [the plaintiff’s] complaint is solely for malicious prosecution.” The Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling.
On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the trial court erred by looking to the gravamen of the complaint. The plaintiff asserted that the gravamen of the complaint is only considered in “cases involving the statute of limitations, governmental immunity, subject matter jurisdiction, and libel/slander,” but the Court disagreed. The Court found that Tennessee allows courts to look to the gravamen of the complaint “to determine the actual cause of action sought by a plaintiff to know what body of law govern[s] the case.”
Looking to the gravamen of the plaintiff’s complaint, the Court noted that Tennessee does not recognize a claim of “negligent identification of a suspect.” Moreover, the Court agreed with other jurisdictions which have specifically rejected the existence of such a claim. The Court explained that the claim available to address damages caused by a wrongful arrest like the one in this case is malicious prosecution. Because the plaintiff’s alleged damages flowed from her malicious prosecution, the trial court was correct to use tort that as the gravamen of her complaint.
“The tort of malicious prosecution seeks to redress misuse of the legal process, but courts have also observed that actions for malicious prosecution ought not to be favored but managed with great caution.” (internal citation and quotation omitted). In its analysis, the Court of Appeals reviewed relevant case law explaining the burden for bringing a malicious prosecution claim against a private person:
Where a private person gives to a prosecuting officer information which he believes to be true, and the officer in the exercise of his uncontrolled discretion initiates criminal proceedings based upon that information, the informer is not liable under the rule stated in this Section even though the information proves to be false and his belief therein was one which a reasonable man would not entertain. The exercise of the officer’s discretion makes the initiation of the prosecution his own and protects from liability the person whose information or accusation has led the officer to initiate the proceedings.
If, however, the information is known by the giver to be false, an intelligent exercise of the officer’s discretion becomes impossible and a prosecution based thereon is procured by the person giving the false information. In order to charge a private person with responsibility for the initiation of proceedings by a public official, it must therefore appear that his desire to have the proceedings initiated expressed by direction, request, or pressure of any kind was the determining factor in the official’s decision to commence the prosecution or that the information furnished by him upon which the official acted was known to be false.
(quoting Gordon v. Tractor Supply Co., No M2015-01049-COA-R3-CV, 2016 WL 3349024 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 8, 2016); internal emphasis omitted).
Although the trial court did not make sufficient findings in this case, the Court nonetheless affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the defendant. The Court found that the plaintiff “could not establish the first element of a malicious prosecution claim… –that [the defendant] started or caused Robertson County to initiate criminal proceedings against her.” The Court noted that “the mere provision of information is insufficient to render [the defendant] liable for malicious prosecution.” The plaintiff also could not prove the second element, that the defendant “acted with malice to orchestrate her arrest.” Summary judgment was therefore affirmed.
As this opinion illustrates, proving malicious prosecution against a private person based on a wrongful arrest against is very difficult.
This opinion was released eight months after the case was assigned on briefs.