lisa vs. Wal-Mart

lisa vs. Wal-Mart - that she had stolen a telephone....

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Andrew Lazarow Can Wal-Mart be held liable for false imprisonment of Lisa? A Tort is a civil wrong, or when one individual wrong another. There are two types of torts, intentional and unintentional. For a tort to be considered unintentional the tortfeaser must not intend the consequences of the act or believe they will occur. In an intentional tort the tortfeaser knows the consequences of the act. False imprisonment is the intentional confinement or restraint of another person’s activities without justification. A defense to false imprisonment to stores is The Shopkeeper Rule. The Shopkeeper Rule allows merchants to reasonably detain customers if there is probable cause. If the shopkeeper rule is enacted it must be reasonable in time and manner. When Lisa was originally stopped by the Wal-Mart security, there was a reason to believe
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: that she had stolen a telephone. Unknown to the employee, Lisa had purchased the telephone on a previous occasion and just decided against returning it while back at the store. Once Lisa tried to clear up the situation is when Wal-Mart lost their justification for detaining Lisa. While Lisa was being detained by Wal-Mart she was embarrassed by being handcuffed in front of her two young daughters. If Wal-Mart were to try and use The Shopkeepers Rule as a defense they would not be successful because the embarrassing manner in which Lisa was detained. In conclusion Wal-Mart can be held liable for false imprisonment of Lisa. Because of the manner in which Lisa was detained Wal-Mart has no defense which means Lisa will be successful if she sues Wal-Mart for false imprisonment....
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online