Cash-Mart Case Summary

Upon arrival, contact was made by the Lost Prevention Officer, Mr. Kenneth Miller (Complainant), for Kohl’s. When contact was made, Mr. Miller advised he observed a white female, Ms. Donna Porter (Arrestee), enter the store and witnessed her place (concealed) several items in black dotted bag (Kohl’s shopping chart), entered the fitting room for a few minutes and approached the cashier at the west side entrance. Ms. Porter purchased a pair of shoes and then passed the point of sale (cash register) without attempting to purchase the items she concealed.

Without thinking of the consequences, he let his hand off the steering and closed his eyes. A few seconds later, he was admitted into a car accident killing Lea. This example shows that Brent was careless about his actions, which caused him to take the life of an innocent girl. This might not have affected him, but it affected Lea's family.

Defendants, Mark and William Schenkly, have not satisfied the elements required to invoke the shopkeeper’s privilege defense. Conduct by the suspect which lead a shopkeeper to believe that the suspect is attempting to steal is enough to establish reasonable cause. In assessing reasonable cause to detain, Arizona courts consider whether appearances are sufficient to justify a shopkeeper’s belief is reasonable. Kon v. Skaggs Drug Center, Inc., 563 P.2d 920, 922 (1977); Gau v. Smitty’s Super Valu, Inc., 901 P.2d 455, 459 (1995). Defendant Mark Schenkly did not see Mr. Flynn take beer from the cooler, nor did he observe that the beer was missing from the cooler. The statute setting forth the requirements for asserting the shopkeeper’s privilege provides that detainment may only take place for the sole purposes of questioning or

The shopkeeper’s privilege does not protect Walmart from liability under the circumstances of the case. Although Navarro had the right to exercise shopkeeper’s privilege, Navarro had not enough evidence to consider Cockrell as a suspect and it is not reasonable that Navarro asked Cockrell to take off the bandage. According to the merchant protection statutes, merchants can stop, detain, and investigate suspected shoplifters without being held liable for false imprisonment if (1) there are reasonable grounds for the suspicion, (2) suspects are detained for only reasonable time, and (3) investigations are conducted in a reasonable manner (Cheeseman, 2015, P.87). Navarro was not fulfilled for the third condition because the investigation is unreasonable on putting the suspect in a risk of death. Since there was a risk of bacterial infection and it may cause death after the wound area exposed under the air, Navarro should

The Shin v. Akin case was presented to the Supreme Court of California due to the plaintiff, Shin, stating that the defendant, Akin, was negligent during playing golf at the Rancho Park golf course that resulted in his injury. The plaintiff stated that himself, the defendant, and a third party went to the golf course to play a round of golf. However, during the game, the plaintiff took a break to check his phone for message and take a water break. During the plaintiff’s break, the plaintiff decided to walk in front of the group and wait for them at the 13th hole, while the defendant and the third party was at the 12th hole proceeding to the 13th hole. The plaintiff states that as he was standing at the 13th hole, the defendant acknowledge his

The Georgia Shopkeeper’s Defense statute bars the Plaintiff’s suit. The statute bars recovery for false imprisonment by merchants or their agents when all of its elements are met. The Shopkeeper’s Defense statute provides in order to preclude recover the following three elements must be present: (1) reasonable suspicion of shoplifting, (2) reasonable time of detention, and (3) reasonable manner of detention. Ga. Code Ann. § 51-7-60 (2015). The Plaintiff and Defendant have agreed that the Plaintiff’s behavior on September 29, 2015, was sufficient to cause a reasonable person to suspect her of shoplifting, and that the length of the Plaintiff’s detention was reasonable. Therefore, the only element in dispute is the reasonableness of the manner in which the Plaintiff was detained. As such, R-Mart should be protected under the statute and the Plaintiff could only recover for false imprisonment if the facts alleged in the complaint demonstrates the manner was unreasonable.

In December of 1996, Debra McCann and her two children were out shopping at a local Wal-Mart. The family was there to exchange and return merchandise previously purchased. After checking out late in the evening, the family was stopped at the entrance of the Wal-Mart store by an associate who thought that one of the children had been caught shoplifting previously. They were told that the police had been called and were told that they were not allowed to leave the store. Instead of actually calling the police, the store’s security officer was called. Sure that this was a case of mistaken identity, Debra McCann offered to show her identification, but was refused by the

Ronnie was the primary victim as he was placed in physical danger whilst in the truck and suffered psychiatric harm as a result. For this sole reason, he is owed a duty of care by his employers. The nature of their relationship means . Failure to install a new safety screen equates to the company's failure to meet the standard of care and they are liable for breach. Ronnie's refusal to wear a helmet is an example of negligent contribution and the two requirements of this principle are satisfied: Ronnie did not take proper care for his own safety and said failure was contributory to the damage he suffered. This is similar to the Capps v Miller case of 1989, where the claimant did not fasten his helmet, subsequently suffering from serious head injuries. Contributory negligence operates as a defence for Bricks R Us, however it is only partial to avoid absolution of liability, since the court's primary aim is to compensate the

Imagine one is in a car accident after hitting a deer and almost killing one of your best friends. This was the situation in my book “WTF”. On October 17th Jimmy and Cam were driving in a stolen car without a license on a stormy fall night. As they were driving on a dark back road, a deer jumped out in front of the car and Jimmy slammed into it.

A Court is unlikely to find Sid’s Sandwiches negligent for the injury sustained by Mr. Peterson. Mr. Peterson is alleging that Sid’s failed to satisfy its duty of care toward a business invitee, but a Court in unlikely to find Mr. Peterson was under the classification of a business invitee. However, if a judge finds Mr. Peterson to be a business invitee, the attack was not reasonably foreseeable.

Despite the sufferance of victims, they often aren’t entirely blameless, as their poor decisions and irresponsibility is ultimately associated with their upsetting and newfound situation. Therefore victims like Fin O’Neil in The Story of Tom Brennan, who ultimately chose to travel in a car with drunken, inexperienced, and impulsive driver, it becomes questionable whether he is also culpable for his injuries. Despite Fin’s sobriety and awareness prior to the accident, this does not implicate him, however it becomes debatable whether the outcomes would be alike; with Fin’s extensive injuries and crash itself, if the decisions made on Fin’s behalf were different. Similarly in the story of ‘In My Little Town’, Leigh Charter Jnr also decides to travel with a drunk driver, regardless of the risks. Although his alertness was also compromised by alcohol, he holds some level of responsibility in his death. However, in ‘Shattered’, there are no obvious victims who made poor decisions, due to the situations isolation. Although, it is disputable whether the perpetrator; Peter Hodgkins’ friends who witnessed the accident could have altered the outcome. Though, it was voiced to Peter; “don’t throw a rock at a car, that’s stupid,” (‘Shattered’, 2011) this partly ousts some responsibility, especially due to their intoxication, which is similar to the other stories. However, responsibility is never fully removed from others, as it only takes one person, one conversation, and any one action during the lead to alter the outcome of July 21st 2007, in Kiama, New South

In Pennsylvania, a plaintiff claiming negligent infliction of emotional distress must establish one of these four situations: “1) that the defendant had a contractual or fiduciary duty; 2) plaintiff suffered a physical impact; 3) plaintiff was in a “zone of danger” and at risk of an immediate physical injury; or 4) plaintiff had a contemporaneous perception of tortious injury to a close relative.” Doe v. Phila. Cmty. Health Alternatives AIDS Task Force, 754 A.2d 25, 27 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000). The first element does not apply to our client because there was no fiduciary or contractual duty relationship. Secondly, it could be argued that Nordlund suffered a physical impact because after Sumner’s accident, Nordlund could not eat, could not

Courts typically break the reasonable manner component down into the actions or lack of actions that were performed by the individual or individuals representing the store during the detention. Actions that are deemed reasonable in the eyes are the court are escorting, asking the individual to stop and reenter store, asking for a receipt, or asking for the individual in question to demonstrate some sort of proof that effect they were not stealing. In Chestnet, the store “requested she return, escorted her to an office inside the store, and voluntarily emptied her purse reveling the stolen item.” (cite) Similarly, Bowman reflected reasonable detention performance: “security managed to halt them, ask for their receipt, led the individuals back into the Customer Service office, and ask the individuals in question to proved a receipt for the stolen merchandise.”(cite) Both cases demonstrate a form of reasonable manner, that a store most perform in order to gain protection from the shopkeeper exception act.

On September 27, 2016; security guard Ruben Roberto, supposed constable and notary to the public, decided to demand us to get out of the Pride establishment due to the fact that he believed my mother to be recording him ( even though she was just turning on her phone to watch videos on youtube). He then proceeded to say that it was a new policy that the corporation added for us the consumers ( in general.) We asked why; he claimed it was all said in a meeting ( which we have no idea of since we don't work there.) There were no signs or rules stating that we couldn't record, the only sign they have is for the employees. Prior to this issue, he has had many other

There are three elements that must be present for an act or omission to be negligent; (1) The defendant owed a duty of care towards the plaintiff; (2) The defendant breached the duty of care by an act or omission; (3) The plaintiff must suffer damage as a result - be it physical, emotional or financial. The court might decide that Freddy (the plaintiff) was owed a duty of care by Elvis (the defendant) if they find that what happened to Freddy was in the realm of reasonable forseeability - any harm that could be caused to a 'neighbour' by Elvis' actions that he could reasonably have expected to happen. The 'neighbour principle' was established in the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932).