Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


MICHAEL D. SKINNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v SPIRIT AIRLINES, INC., STEVE GOODWIN and PAULA STANKICH, Defendants-Appellees, and JANE DOE, WAYNE COUNTY SHERIFF, COUNTY OF WAYNE, and WAYNE COUNTY DIVISION OF AIRPORTS, AIRPORT POLICE, 1 Defendants.

UNPUBLISHED December 10, 1999

No. 211014 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 96-643635 CZ

Before: Gribbs, P.J., and Murphy and Griffin, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals as of right from an order granting defendants' motion for summary disposition. We affirm. Plaintiff was a passenger on a Spirit flight and was arrested following an accusation that he had molested his daughter during the flight. Defendant Paula Stankich was the flight attendant who observed the alleged molestation. She reported her findings to the pilot, defendant Steve Goodwin, and the authorities were alerted. Following an extensive investigation conducted by the FBI and local authorities, which investigation included two interrogations, a lie detector test and psychological evaluations, the United States District Attorney refused to prosecute plaintiff. Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, alleging, amongst other claims, malicious prosecution and negligence based on the failure to adequately investigate the situation before notifying the police. The trial court granted defendants' motion for summary disposition on these two claims.2

-1

The trial court granted summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (C)(10). Because it appears that the court went beyond the pleadings, this Court will review the issue pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). Appellate review of a motion for summary disposition is de novo. Spiek v Dep't of Transportation, 456 Mich 331, 337; 572 NW2d 201 (1998). A motion for summary disposition relying upon MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests whether there is factual support for a claim. Id. A court must consider the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, admissions and other documentary evidence available to it. Id. The party opposing the motion has the burden of showing that a genuine issue of material fact exists. Skinner v Square D Co, 445 Mich 153, 160; 516 NW2d 475 (1994). All inferences will be drawn in favor of the nonmovant. Dagen v Hastings Mutual Ins Co, 166 Mich App 225, 229; 420 NW2d 111 (1987). Plaintiff first argues that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition as to his claim for malicious prosecution. We disagree. In order to prevail on a claim of malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must show: (1) that the defendant has initiated a criminal prosecution against him, (2) that the criminal proceedings terminated in his favor, (3) that the private person who instituted or maintained the prosecution lacked probable cause for his action, and (4) that the action was undertaken with malice or a purpose in instituting the criminal claim other than bringing the offender to justice. [ Cox v Williams, 233 Mich App 388, 391; 593 NW2d 173 (1999).] There was no prosecution. In the absence of this critical element, plaintiff cannot sustain this action. See Prosser & Keeton, Torts (5th ed),

Download MICHAEL D SKINNER V SPIRIT AIRLINES INC.pdf

Michigan Law