Bly v. Skaggs Drug Centers, Inc.
562 S.W.2d 723, 1978 Mo. App. LEXIS 1978 (1978)
Rule of Law:
An appellate court will not reverse a trial court's decision for admitting inadmissible evidence if the objection at trial was not specific or failed to state the proper grounds for exclusion. A merchant's statutory privilege to detain a suspected shoplifter requires only reasonable grounds to believe a wrongful taking is occurring or has occurred, not actual removal of merchandise from the premises, and a claim for loss of consortium requires evidence of actual damages to the claimant.
Facts:
- Delores Bly went to a Skaggs Drug Store in Raytown, Missouri, to have a prescription for "diet pills" filled.
- After her prescription was filled, Delores Bly placed the "diet pills" into her purse.
- Delores Bly bypassed the cash register in the checkout area and began to exit the store.
- David Rogers, Skaggs' assistant manager, had Delores Bly under surveillance from the time she left the pharmaceutical counter.
- A pharmacist informed David Rogers via intercom that records indicated Delores Bly had not paid for two or three previous prescriptions.
- David Rogers restrained Delores Bly for failing to pay for the "diet pills" as she attempted to exit the building.
- Delores Bly was married to Roland Bly on the evening of July 1, 1972, the same day as the incident at the Skaggs Drug Store.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs Delores Bly and Roland Bly filed an action for damages in a trial court against Skaggs Drug Centers, Inc., with count one alleging false imprisonment by Delores Bly and count two alleging loss of consortium by Roland Bly.
- The case was tried to a jury.
- At the close of plaintiffs’ evidence, the trial court sustained Skaggs’ motion for a directed verdict as to count two of plaintiffs’ petition (Roland Bly's claim for loss of consortium).
- Count one of plaintiffs’ petition (Delores Bly's claim for false imprisonment) was submitted to the jury, which returned a verdict in favor of Skaggs and against Delores Bly.
- Plaintiffs filed a joint motion for a new trial, which was unsuccessful.
- Both plaintiffs appealed.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Did the trial court commit reversible error by reading a portion of a merchant detention statute to the jury or by improperly instructing the jury on false imprisonment and the merchant's statutory defense, despite challenges from the plaintiff's counsel? 2. Did the trial court err in directing a verdict against the husband's claim for loss of consortium when there was no evidence of him sustaining damages as a direct result of his wife's alleged false imprisonment?
Opinions:
Majority - Somerville, Judge
No, the trial court did not commit reversible error regarding the jury instructions for Delores Bly, nor did it err in directing a verdict against Roland Bly's loss of consortium claim. The court held that taking judicial notice of a public statute (Section 537.125, RSMo 1969) was proper, and there was sufficient evidence to support the merchant's defense. While reading a portion of the statute to the jury was "wholly improper" as an untimely comment on the law, it did not constitute reversible error because Delores Bly's counsel failed to lodge specific objections stating the proper grounds for its exclusion. An objection must be specific to preserve error on appeal. The court also found that the trial court properly refused Delores Bly's proposed verdict director (Instruction No. 2-A) because it included an unsubstantiated conjunctive submission ('restrained and instigated the restraint') not supported by evidence that only showed direct restraint. The trial court's given verdict director (Instruction No. 2) and the defendant's affirmative defense instruction (Instruction No. 3), which precisely followed MAI 32.13 and Section 537.125, were found to be proper. The court clarified that Section 537.125 does not require evidence of an actual taking or removal of merchandise from the premises, only "reasonable grounds or probable cause to believe that a person has committed or is committing a wrongful taking." Finally, the trial court was justified in directing a verdict against Roland Bly's claim for loss of consortium because there was "not a scintilla of evidence" that he sustained any damage as a direct result of his wife’s alleged false imprisonment, emphasizing that a husband's claim for consequential injuries requires proof of such damages.
Analysis:
This case underscores the critical importance of lodging specific and legally sound objections at trial to preserve issues for appellate review. It clarifies the scope and application of merchant protection statutes in false imprisonment claims, establishing that reasonable suspicion, not actual completed theft, is sufficient for detention. Furthermore, the ruling reinforces that claims for loss of consortium are not automatic; they require concrete evidence of the claimant's own damages directly resulting from the spouse's injury. The case also highlights the strict adherence to Missouri Approved Instructions (MAI) and the need for jury instructions to be supported by the evidence presented.
