Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
I: Issue
Does the shop keepers privilege protect Walmart from liability under the circumstances
of the case?
The Shoppers Privilege refers to a common law privilege given to shopper keepers
whereby they can detain a suspected shoplifter on store property for a reasonable period of time.
This can only be done if the shopkeeper has reason to believe that the person detained in fact
committed, or attempted to commit, theft of store property.
In order to prevail the privilege, the shopkeeper must ensure that:
1. The investigation is conducted near or on the premise.
2. The shopkeeper has reasonable grounds to suspect the person detained engaged in
shoplifting.
3. Only reasonable, non-deadly force is used to effect the detention
4. The detention only lasts for a short period of time to investigate the facts.
If the shopkeeper fails to satisfy these conditions then they lose the privilege and may be
held liable.
R: Rule: Merchant Protection Statutes (Shopkeepers Privilege)
Shopkeepers privilege is defined as Statutes that allow merchants to stop, detain, and
investigate suspected shoplifters without being held liable for false imprisonment. (Cheeseman,
2013, pp 86) In order for merchants to not be held liable for false imprisonment three criteria
should be met: (1) there are reasonable grounds for the suspicion, (2) suspects are detained for
only a reasonable time, and (3) investigations are conducted in a reasonable manner.
(Cheeseman, 2013, pp 86)
A: Analysis
In conducting an analysis of the law to the facts of the case, the court must look at the
merchant protection statutes for the state. These statutes allow merchants to stop, detain, and
investigate suspected shoplifters without being held liable for false imprisonment. The merchant
will not be held liable if there are reasonable grounds for the suspicion, suspects are detained for
only a reasonable time, and investigations are conducted in a reasonable manner (Cheeseman,
2013, p. 86). Raymond Navarro did not witness the plaintiff steal any merchandise; therefore did
not have reasonable grounds to detain him. There can also be question to the investigation being
conducted in a reasonable manner. Navarro could not have assumed Cockrell hid merchandise
under bandage.
C: Conclusion
The conclusion of case 5.1 False Imprisonment Walmart Stores, Inc vs. Cockrell was a
ruling in Cockrell's favor, with him winning $300,000 for mental anguish. The court of appeals
confirmed the facts of the case with the trial court's findings that Walmart had undoubtedly
falsely accused Cockrell and falsely imprisoned him and had not proved the shopkeeper's
privilege. In order to prove a case of mental anguish is typically lumped together with physical
pain in personal injury claims. But it is recognized as its own separate element of damage
(Goyen 2014). Since Cockrell was still shaken up from the incident and did not leave the house
for months, due to being falsely accused by Walmart, that helped his case and he was able to win.
References
Cheeseman, H.R. (2013). Business law: Legal environment, online commerce, business ethics,
and international issues (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Goyen, D. (2014). Mental Anguish: How to Prove. Retrieved
from www.douggoyen.com/lawyer-attorney
Risk Mitigation Planning, Implementation, and Progress. (2014). Retrieved November 22,2014
from www.mitre.org/publications/bioengineering's/acquisition
Shopkeepers Privilege and the Legal Definition. Retrieved from www. Definitions.uslegal.com