Contemporary Business and Online Commerce Law 7th Edition by Henry R Cheeseman

Exercise 1

False Imprisonment

Walmart Stores, Inc. v. Cockrell

61 S.W.3d 774, Web 2001 Tex. App. Lexis 7992 (2001) Court of Appeals of Texas

“He made me feel like I was scum. That I had no say-so in the matter, that just made me feel like a little kid on the block, like the bully beating the kid up…"

—Karl Cockrell

Facts

Karl Cockrell and his parents went to the layaway department at a Walmart store. Cockrell stayed for about five minutes and decided to leave. As he was going out the front door, Raymond Navarro, a Walmart loss-prevention officer, stopped him and requested that Cockrell follow him to the manager’s office. Once in the office, Navarro told him to pull his pants down. Cockrell put his hands between his shorts and underwear, pulled them out and shook them. Nothing fell out. Next Navarro told him to take off his shirt. Cockrell raised his shirt, revealing a large bandage that covered a surgical wound on the right side of his abdomen. Cockrell had recently had a liver transplant. Navarro asked him to take off the bandage, despite Cockrell’s explanation that the bandage maintained a sterile environment around his surgical wound. On Navarro’s insistence, Cockrell took down the bandage, revealing the wound. Afterwards Navarro apologized and let Cockrell go. Cockrell sued Walmart to recover damages for false imprisonment. Walmart defended, alleging that the shopkeeper’s privilege protected it from liability. The trial court found in favor of Cockrell and awarded Cockrell $300,000 for his mental anguish. Walmart appealed.

Issue

Does the shopkeeper’s privilege protect Walmart from liability under the circumstances of the case?

Language of the Court

Neither Raymond Navarro nor any other store employee saw Cockrell steal merchandise. However Navarro claimed he had reasons to suspect Cockrell of shoplifting. He said that Cockrell was acting suspiciously, because he saw him in the women’s department standing very close to a rack of clothes and looking around. Later he saw Cockrell looking around and walking slowly by the cigarette aisle and then “pass out of the store.” We conclude that a rational jury could have found that Navarro did not “reasonably believe” a theft had occurred and therefore lacked authority to detain Cockrell. Navarro’s search was unreasonable in scope, because he had no probable cause to believe that Cockrell had hidden any merchandise under the bandage. Removal of the bandage compromised the sterile environment surrounding the wound.

Evidence of Cockrell’s mental anguish comes largely from the following testimony: Counsel asked Cockrell to describe his demeanor when he took down his bandage in the manager’s office. He stated that Navarro: “Made me feel like I was scum. That I had no say-so in the matter, that just made me feel like a little kid on the block, like the bully beating the kid up and saying, ‘Well, I didn’t catch you with nothing; but I’m going to humiliate him, twist a knife a little bit more into them.’”

Cockrell testified that after Navarro let him go he was shaking, crying, nervous, scared, and looking around to make sure no one else was trying to stop him. When he arrived at home he was crying, nervous, and still “pretty well shook up. ” His mother said that he stayed upset for a “long time” and would not go out of the house.

Decision

The court of appeals upheld the trial court’s finding that Walmart had falsely imprisoned Cockrell and had not proved the shopkeeper’s privilege. The court of appeals upheld the trial court’s judgment that awarded Cockrell $300,000 for mental anguish.

Case Questions

---

Critical Legal Thinking What is the tort of false imprisonment? Explain.

Ethics Did Navarro, the Walmart employee, act responsibly in this case? Did Walmart act ethically in denying liability in this case?

Contemporary Business What does the shopkeeper’s privilege provide? What are the elements necessary to prove the shopkeeper’s privilege? Do you think Walmart had a good chance of proving the shopkeeper’s privilege in this case?

Step 1 of 4

False imprisonment:

It refers to an intentional tort in which a person restraints another person, without any the justification and without consent of the offended person.

However, any moral pressure or threat of any sort of future harm does not count to false imprisonment. To make an action a false imprisonment it must be complete.