In Daniel v. Ga. R. Bank & Trust Co. 255 Ga. 29 (334 SE2d 659) (1985), the Supreme Court, while expressly declining to decide whether a defendant may be liable for negligently causing the arrest of another, assumed that if such a cause of action exists, the statute of limitation begins running at the time of arrest. Id. at 31. The Valadeses do not assert that Uslu negligently caused their arrest; they sued him for committing an intentional tort. The Court clearly held in Daniel that the statute of limitation on malicious prosecution claims begins running upon the termination of the criminal prosecution in the plaintiff's favor. Id