Walmart Case Summary

The Alison Peterson v. Grocery Depot Inc tort lawsuit is about an incident that occurs in countless grocery stores across the United States. Peterson is alleging Grocery Depot Inc. was negligent in their duty of care to her as a business visitor. Grocery Depot Inc. as a property owner has a legal duty to maintain the grocery store premises in a safe and hazard free condition or to warn a customer about any situation that could be dangerous. Peterson alleges Grocery Depot Inc breached this duty, which resulted in her slip and fall.

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

(2) it was at least reasonable for jury to determine that, absent warnings, hiring one guard who primarily remained inside store was an insufficient response to known, repeated history of attacks on premises; and

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.

Uliano advised me that the defendant entered the store and concealed several Walmart items in several Walmart plastic bags that she brought into the store with her. The bags were then placed into a Walmart shopping cart.

Mr. Graham was later released when the officer establishes that nothing had happened in the store. Graham then sued the police department, claiming his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure was violated. The Supreme Court later ruled that the police officers be held accountable under the Constitution and federal law for using excessive force on Graham. The court also ruled that such liability must base on the standard of objective sensibleness. (Carmen,

In the case of White the court will likely find that according to Indiana Code § 35-33-6-2 Stallmart had probable cause to detain and the duration as well as manner the detention was conducted was reasonable. Therefore, the shopkeeper’s privilege should apply to Stallmart protecting them against false imprisonment claims.

This case mainly deals with the interpretation of our Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects us from unlawful search and seizures. What we can learn from this case are: the differences in court systems, the elements that comprise the Fourth Amendment, and the controversies surrounding it. The text relevant to this case can be found within the first six chapters of our textbook, with an emphasis on Chapter 6 “Criminal Law and Business”.

Target Corporation uses an interesting capital-budgeting system. Projects are proposed using Capital Project Requests (CPRs) and must be approved before money can be spent. The level of approval needed depends on the amount being requested. For projects requiring less than $100K, lower management can approve, but anything above this amount goes to the Capital Expenditure Committee (CEC) which is comprised of 5 executive officers. For projects requiring greater than $50 million, the Board of Directors must approve.

The petitioner Graham, in this case, is a diabetic man who has asked his friend Berry to drive him to the convenience store to counteract his onset insulin reaction by purchasing a container of orange juice. Seeing the number of people in the store upon his arrival, petitioner Graham hurries back out to the car Berry is currently waiting for him in, asking Berry to drive him over to one of his friend’s houses instead. A city officer respondent Connor grew uncertain witnessing petitioner Graham quickly enter and exit the store, so he followed Berry’s car making an investigative stop, telling the two of them to stand by while Officer Connor gathers the details of what had happened in the store. Upon backup police officers arrival on scene, Graham was put into handcuffs, sustaining multiple injuries while the officers ignored any

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.

Under Texas law, it is more likely than not that a customer will be able to establish a false imprisonment claim against a store when an

The lawfulness issue is more complicated, as the shoplifting defense for the purposes of the statute can be successfully applied to defeat claim of false imprisonment. However, an unreasonable belief of suspected shoplifting and racial profiling would leave room for the argument that the Millers have a valid claim. The second issue element in the confiscation of iPhone is not at issue because this was not an instance of shoplifting. Therefore, the only element issue here is detention. Under the rule recognized by Georgia courts, confiscation of Charlene’s phone probably is not a detention.

The Defendant, George Tiba (“Defendant Tiba”) and L.A. were both at a local bar, Walrus, on the night of Feb. 16, 2013. Walrus is a commonly known as a college bar, often filled with students from the University of Colorado. Defendant Tiba offered to purchase beverages for L.A. and her friend, who both accepted. Afterwards, Defendant Tiba continued to make inappropriate contact and statements to L.A. during their time at the bar. After a period of time, Defendant Tiba drove L.A. back to her apartment where the offenses occurred early in the morning on Feb. 17, 2013. L.A. went to the hospital later in the day on Feb. 17, where a SANE examination was conducted by a SANE certified nurse. From the evidence collected, the District Attorney commenced

The given fact is concerned about the intentional tort of false imprisonment of Donna (D), intrusion and vicarious liability to establish liability against the store. The answer will also discuss possible damages for D.