## Facts

- Richard J. Roberts worked about nine years as a Federal Express maintenance mechanic at the Memphis facility and had an exemplary work record.
- His duties included maintaining concealed security cameras; he had previously turned in found property and assisted the employer in uncovering employee theft.
- On February 1, 1988, Roberts reported to work with severe back pain and was taking medication (including valium).
- During his shift, he found several items on the premises (including a ring, a videotape, and other personal items) and put them in his jacket and a tape sleeve.
- Roberts told a coworker he needed to turn the items in, then fell asleep for the remainder of his shift.
- At the end of the shift, Roberts attempted to exit through an employee exit with an electronic screening device; it activated, and FedEx security detained him.
- Roberts acknowledged possessing the items, gave a written statement, and was questioned by FedEx security for several hours; FedEx suspended him.
- About nine days later, FedEx sought a criminal warrant charging Roberts with grand larceny; a grand jury declined to indict.
- Roberts and his wife sued FedEx for malicious prosecution, alleging lack of probable cause and malice in initiating the criminal process.

## Issues

1. Whether FedEx had probable cause, on the summary-judgment record, to institute criminal proceedings against Roberts for theft.
2. Whether probable cause in a malicious prosecution action is a question of law for the court or a question for the jury when reasonable inferences differ.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed summary judgment for FedEx and remanded.
- The court held that probable cause in malicious prosecution is generally for the jury to decide, except where material facts are undisputed and only one reasonable inference is possible.
- Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Roberts, the court concluded reasonable jurors could differ on whether FedEx had probable cause, making summary judgment improper.

## Legal Principles

- Probable cause in malicious prosecution is evaluated by an objective standard: whether the known facts and circumstances would lead a person of ordinary caution to believe the accused committed the charged offense.
- The probable-cause inquiry is not controlled by a prosecutor’s subjective belief or the complainant’s asserted subjective judgment.
- A court may resolve probable cause as a matter of law only when material facts are genuinely undisputed and no reasonable factfinder could draw differing conclusions; otherwise, the issue goes to the jury.
- On summary judgment, the evidence and reasonable inferences are taken in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, and competing inferences about intent can preclude judgment as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court held that, in malicious prosecution actions, probable cause is ordinarily a jury question under an objective reasonable-person test; because the record permitted competing inferences about Roberts’s intent and FedEx’s basis for initiating charges, summary judgment for FedEx was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.


Roberts v. Fed. Express Corp., 842 S.W.2d 246 (Tenn. 1992)