505 So.2d at 1215. See alsoPannell v. Reynolds, 655 So.2d 935, 938 (Ala. 1994), where this Court said, "The [Alabama Power Co. v.] Neighbors[, 402 So.2d 958 (Ala. 1981),] rule allows a citizen to fulfill one's civic duty to come forth in good faith with information concerning a suspected crime, without fear of repercussions if the information later leads to a wrongful arrest." The Court, citing Ritch v. Waldrop, 428 So.2d 1 (Ala. 1982), added a caveat, however, stating, "The rule, however, presupposes that the citizen has stated all material facts within his or her knowledge regarding the alleged crime and has not brought about the indictment by fraud, by suppressing facts, or by other misconduct.
505 So.2d at 1215. See also Pannell v. Reynolds, 655 So.2d 935, 938 (Ala. 1994), where this Court said, `The [Alabama Power Co. v.] Neighbors[, 402 So.2d 958 (Ala. 1981),] rule allows a citizen to fulfill one's civic duty to come forth in good faith with information concerning a suspected crime, without fear of repercussions if the information later leads to a wrongful arrest.' The Court, citing Ritch v. Waldrop, 428 So.2d 1 (Ala. 1982), added a caveat, however, stating, `The rule, however, presupposes that the citizen has stated all material facts within his or her knowledge regarding the alleged crime and has not brought about the indictment by fraud, by suppressing facts, or by other misconduct.' 655 So.2d at 938.
505 So.2d at 1215. See also Pannell v. Reynolds, 655 So.2d 935, 938 (Ala. 1994), where this Court said, `The [Alabama Power Co. v.] Neighbors [, 402 So.2d 958 (Ala. 1981),] rule allows a citizen to fulfill one's civic duty to come forth in good faith with information concerning a suspected crime, without fear of repercussions if the information later leads to a wrongful arrest.' The Court, citing Ritch v. Waldrop, 428 So.2d 1 (Ala. 1982), added a caveat, however, stating, `The rule, however, presupposes that the citizen has stated all material facts within his or her knowledge regarding the alleged crime and has not brought about the indictment by fraud, by suppressing facts, or by other misconduct.' 655 So.2d at 938.
"In order to succeed in a malicious prosecution action, a plaintiff must prove 1) that a prior judicial proceeding was instigated by the present defendant, 2) that it was instigated without probable cause and with malice, 3) that the prior proceeding ended in favor of the present plaintiff, and 4) that the present plaintiff was damaged thereby." Pannell v. Reynolds, 655 So.2d 935, 937-38 (Ala. 1994). See also Gunter v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., 646 So.2d 1332, 1333 (Ala. 1994).
This argument is premised on citations to a false imprisonment and a malicious prosecution case, respectively, in which Alabama courts discuss “bad faith.” Yabba v. Ala. Christian Acad., 823 F.Supp.2d 1247, 1251 (M.D.Ala.2011); Pannell v. Reynolds, 655 So.2d 935 (Ala.1994). The Huddle House Defendants rely upon authority that are not wrongful death cases nor do these cases provide guidance on the matter of causation under Ala.Code § 6–5–410.
Moreover, "[j]ury verdicts are presumed to be correct." Pannell v. Reynolds, 655 So.2d 935, 939 (Ala. 1994). "This presumption is strengthened when the trial court denies a motion for a new trial.
" In Pannell v. Reynolds, 655 So.2d 935, 938 (Ala. 1994), a malicious prosecution case, this Court, quoting Alabama Power Co. v. Neighbors, 402 So.2d 958, 962 (Ala. 1981), again made it clear that a person does not instigate an arrest by merely providing information that results in another's arrest, unless the person acts in bad faith (i.e., lacks any reasonable basis upon which to accuse another of a crime): "DAPTS correctly points out that there is no cause of action for malicious prosecution unless a judicial proceeding was instigated by the present defendant.
Probable cause does not demand a high degree of assurance in fact-finding. See Pannell v. Reynolds, 655 So.2d 935, 939 (Ala. 1994) ("In a civil proceeding, `"`all that is necessary [for probable cause] is that the claimant reasonably believe that there is a chance that [the] claim may be held valid upon adjudication'"'" (brackets added by the court in Pannell) (citations omitted). In a difficult case, DPS is not required even to convene a medical advisory board, and if it does convene a medical advisory board, it is not required to rely on the board's advice; DPS can deny a license based on probable cause to believe the applicant is impaired enough to be unsafe.
530 So.2d at 735 (citations omitted).Pannell v. Reynolds, 655 So.2d 935, 937-38 (Ala. 1994). "Probable cause is the state of facts which would lead a person of reasonable prudence to honestly believe that the claims put forth in the prior suit would prevail."