Danielson v. Hess
2011 S.D. 82
S.D.2011Background
- Danielson, employed as a Rocket Lube mechanic, was accused of theft by his employer after a dispute over unremitted checks from a customer.
- Hess (president) and Jansevics prepared a report alleging Danielson stole parts and money from Rocket Lube and provided it to police.
- Lawrence County prosecutors, after independent investigations, prosecuted Danielson for felony grand theft based on police and prosecutorial review.
- Danielson was tried in 2008 and acquitted by the jury.
- Danielson then sued Hess, Jansevics, and Minitman, Inc. for malicious prosecution, defamation, and retaliatory discharge; the circuit court granted summary judgment on the malicious prosecution claim.
- On appeal, Danielson argues that false or incomplete information was supplied to authorities and thus caused the prosecution; the court must decide whether the employer’s information was the legal cause of the prosecution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal causation for malicious prosecution | Danielson argues the false/incomplete information provided by Hess and Jansevics was the legal cause of the prosecution. | The prosecution was independent, with its own investigation by the police and State’s Attorney. | Prosecution not caused by the alleged false information; affirmed summary judgment for defendants. |
| Independent investigation and its effect on causation | Even with independent investigations, false information could still be the but-for cause. | Independent investigations by Pedneau and Fitzgerald show causation did not rest on Hess/Jansevics’s report. | But-for causation not established; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sabag v. Cont’l S.D., 374 N.W.2d 349 (S.D. 1985) (false information alone isn’t sufficient; must be legal cause of prosecution)
- Leisinger v. Jacobson, 651 N.W.2d 693 (S.D. 2002) (informant not liable when state prosecutors conduct independent investigation)
- Malloy v. Chi., M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 148 N.W. 598 (S.D. 1914) (prosecution initiated by prosecutors upon independent investigation; private party liable only if its information determined prosecution)
- Miessner v. All Dakota Ins. Assocs., Inc., 515 N.W.2d 198 (S.D. 1994) (private party must show its information was the but-for cause of prosecution)
- All American Telephone, Inc. v. USLD Communications, Inc., 291 S.W.3d 518 (Tex. App. 2009) (but-for causation required; information must be relied upon by prosecutor to initiate prosecution)