Brief-Mc Cann v. Walmart - Civil Litigation I PDF

Preview

Summary

Case brief....

Description

McCann v. Wal-mart Stores, Inc., 210 F.3d 51 (1st Cir. 2000). Facts:       

Parties: Debra McCann, plaintiff, v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., defendant. Plaintiff and her children were shopping in Wal-Mart. Upon trying to leave after making their purchases, Wal-Mart employees prevent them from leaving, claiming that plaintiff’s children had stolen items, though they had not. Plaintiff and her children were detained for over an hour by Wal-Mart while “waiting for the police”. Plaintiff sued for false imprisonment and won $20,000 in compensatory damages. Wal-Mart moved for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial; the district court denied. Wal-Mart appealed the district court’s denial of its motions and plaintiff cross-appealed from the district court’s pre-trial dismissal of their claim for punitive damages.

Issues: 

The issue is whether plaintiff and her children were “confined” under common law false imprisonment when Wal-Mart prevented them from leaving the store after wrongly identifying plaintiff’s children as shoplifters.

Rationale:   



The court stated that an action does not have to include physical force or the threat of physical force to be considered confinement. The court stated that “confinement may occur by other unspecified means of ‘duress’.” The court stated that the evidence showed that Wal-Mart confined the McCanns because WalMart: o Stopped the McCanns as they were leaving o Told the McCanns to come with them and that they were calling the police o Stood guard over the McCanns to prevent them from leaving o Did not tell the McCanns that they could leave o Claimed that they were calling the police when in reality they were calling a security guard The court stated that the conduct of Wal-Mart in in denying one of the plaintiff’s children his request to use the bathroom was not “sufficiently outrageous” conduct.

Disposition: The court affirmed the lower court’s decision granting the plaintiff compensatory relief and dismissing the McCann’s claim for punitive damages.

Holdings: 



The court held that because a “reasonable jury could conclude that Wal-Mart’s employees intended to ‘confine’ the McCanns ‘within boundaries fixed by’ Wal-Mart, that the employee’ acts did result in such a confinement, and that the McCanns were conscious of the confinement,” that therefore there were sufficient grounds to determined that the McCanns were confined and that Wal-Mart falsely imprisoned them. The court also held that the defendant’s refusal to let one of the plaintiff’s children use the bathroom was not conduct “sufficiently outrageous” to justify punitive damages.

Rule: If a reasonable person thinks that force may be used to prevent his leaving an area, then there is confinement, even if there is no actual force....