affirming “special injury” required in malicious prosecution
How later courts described this case
- affirming “special injury” required in malicious prosecution
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BRYSON, J.,
specially concurring.
I concur in the result. However, I have no difficulty in concluding as a matter of law that the charges made by defendant against plaintiff to the University of Oregon Student Court are civil and not criminal in nature. A criminal matter is usually one which the government deems injurious to the public at large, as provided by a statute, and is prosecuted by a judicial proceeding in the state’s or government’s name. An act such as the defendant charged may be both a crime and a tort but to constitute a crime it must be an offense against the public and brought by the state or governmental body. Usually a crime entails arrest and possible loss of liberty or freedom.
In malicious prosecution cases arising out of a civil proceeding, it is necessary to plead and prove that actual damages are caused. Prosser, Torts 875, § 114 (3d ed 1964). As pointed out by the majority, plaintiff *714 only alleged that he "suffered humiliation, damage to his reputation, anguish, and mental distress.”
Also, the majority states, "Although we recognize that an expulsion or suspension from the university would entail some loss of liberty * * I cannot agree with this in the context that we usually consider when speaking of loss of liberty.
The plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a cause of action, and I would affirm the trial court in sustaining the demurrer to the complaint.