Brown v. Super Discount Markets, Inc.
477 S.E.2d 839, 223 Ga.App. 174, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 3478 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A shopkeeper's statutory privilege to detain a suspected shoplifter requires that both the initial decision to detain and the subsequent manner and length of the detention be reasonable. When material facts regarding the reasonableness of the detention's manner or duration are in dispute, summary judgment is inappropriate, and the issue must be resolved by a jury.
Facts:
- Phillip Smith, a security employee at Cub Foods, observed Janice Brown and Kelly Roper as they were shopping.
- Smith believed he saw Brown and Roper concealing merchandise, including cigarettes, meat, and cheese, inside their purses.
- As Brown and Roper approached the checkout line, Smith intercepted them to investigate the suspected shoplifting.
- Smith and another employee, Evette Sanabria, escorted Brown and Roper to the store office where the merchandise, valued at $26.66, was recovered.
- According to Brown, Roper, and a witness, Smith grabbed Brown’s arm, slung her, and shoved Roper into a candy rack during the initial confrontation.
- Brown and Roper alleged that Smith locked them in the office for an hour to an hour and a half, repeatedly pushed Brown down when she tried to leave, and poked her in the back as she departed.
- Brown and Roper also claimed that Smith was profane, verbally abusive, and threatened to contact social services to have Roper's child taken away.
Procedural Posture:
- Janice Brown and Kelly Roper filed a lawsuit against Super Discount Markets, Inc. and its employee, Phillip Smith, in a Georgia trial court.
- The complaint alleged tort claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, and assault and battery.
- The defendants, Cub and Smith, moved for summary judgment, arguing their actions were protected by statutory privilege.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case.
- Brown and Roper, as appellants, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a dispute over material facts regarding the reasonableness of the manner and duration of a customer's detention for suspected shoplifting, and the use of physical force during that detention, preclude the grant of summary judgment in favor of the store under the shopkeeper's privilege statute?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Harold R. Banke
Yes. A dispute over material facts regarding the reasonableness of the manner and length of a detention for suspected shoplifting precludes summary judgment. While Smith had reasonable cause to initiate the stop based on his observations, the shopkeeper's privilege under OCGA § 51-7-60 also requires the manner and length of detention to be reasonable. Here, the parties presented starkly conflicting accounts: Cub Foods claimed a brief, ten-minute voluntary encounter, whereas Brown and Roper described a lengthy, forced detention involving physical and verbal abuse. The court reasoned that reasonableness may be decided as a matter of law only in rare cases where the evidence is uncontroverted, which is not the situation here. Similarly, the plaintiffs' testimony about being grabbed, shoved, and pushed creates a triable issue of fact as to whether the force used was excessive and therefore constituted an unprivileged and unlawful assault and battery. Therefore, a jury must determine the reasonableness of Smith’s actions.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the limitations of the shopkeeper's privilege, clarifying that the privilege is a qualified one, not an absolute shield against liability. The court establishes that both the inception and the execution of the detention must be reasonable, treating them as separate factual inquiries. By reversing summary judgment, the case underscores that the question of reasonableness in detention and use of force is fundamentally a factual issue for a jury, especially when firsthand accounts are in direct conflict. This precedent makes it more difficult for defendants to win false imprisonment and battery claims at the summary judgment stage if the plaintiff can provide testimony of unreasonable conduct.
