McCann v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 210 F. 3d 51

NAME:

McCann v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 210 F. 3d 51

FACTS:
· π’s shopping at Δ’s store
· When leaving, π’s were prevented from leaving the store by two employees of the Δ who stepped in front of the shopping cart, blocking their path to exit and actually placing their hand on the cart, stating that the police were on their way.
· π’s son was mistaken for the son of a different family who had been caught shoplifting two weeks before.
· π’s were detained near the front of the store and waited for the police, which later turned out to be a security guard who stated that they had the wrong boy.

PROCEDURE:

Jury awarded the McCanns $20,000 in Compensatory damages. Wal-Mart appealed.

ISSUE:

Whether the jury, by the facts presented, would conclude that the π was falsely imprisoned by the Δ?

HOLDING:

The court concluded that a reasonable jury could conclude that Δ’s employees intended to “confine” the π’s “within boundaries fixed by” Δ, that the employees’ acts did result in such a confinement, and that the π were conscious of the confinement.

REASONING:
· False Imprisonment: conduct by the actor which is intended to, and does in fact, “confine” another “within boundaries fixed by the actor” where, in addition, the victim is either “conscious of the confinement or is harmed by it.” –Restatement 2d., Torts §35
· Physical barriers or physical force, as well as mere threats of physical force can suffice as “confinement”
· Threats of “confinement” may be implicit as well as explicit, and can also be based on a false assertion of legal authority to confine. –Restatement, Supra, § 41
· Confinement may occur by other unspecified means of “duress.” Id. § 40A.
· The mere threat of physical force, or a claim of lawful authority to restrain, as enough to satisfy the confinement requirement for false imprisonment.
· The directions to the π, the reference to the police, and the continued presence of the Δ’s employees…were enough to induce reasonable people to believe either that they would be restrained physically if they sought to leave, or that the store was claiming lawful authority to confine them until the police arrived, or both.

DISPOSITION:

Affirmed

DISSENT:

None