Coblyn v. Kennedy's, Inc.
268 N.E.2d 860 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under a statute allowing merchants a defense against false imprisonment claims, the term 'reasonable grounds' for detention is an objective standard equivalent to probable cause, not a subjective standard based on the merchant's personal suspicion. Any restraint on a person's liberty through physical power or fear of personal difficulty, if submitted to, constitutes false imprisonment.
Facts:
- On March 5, 1965, the plaintiff, a seventy-year-old man named Coblyn, entered a Kennedy's, Inc. store wearing an ascot he owned.
- While trying on sport coats on the second floor, Coblyn removed his topcoat, hat, and ascot, placing the ascot in his pocket.
- After purchasing a coat and leaving it for alterations, Coblyn put his hat and coat back on.
- Just before walking out the main entrance on the first floor, Coblyn stopped, took his own ascot from his pocket, and tied it around his neck.
- As Coblyn stepped out of the store, an employee, Goss, blocked his path, firmly grasped his arm, and said, 'Stop. Where did you get that scarf? ... you better go back and see the manager.'
- This encounter occurred in front of eight to ten other people who were standing nearby.
- Goss, accompanied by another employee, escorted Coblyn back up to the second floor.
- The incident caused Coblyn severe emotional upset, leading to hospitalization for a myocardial infarct.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, Coblyn, brought an action of tort for false imprisonment against Kennedy's, Inc. and its employee, Goss, in a Massachusetts trial court.
- At the conclusion of a jury trial, the defendants moved for directed verdicts.
- The trial court judge denied the defendants' motion.
- The jury returned verdicts in favor of the plaintiff, Coblyn, in the sum of $12,500.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, excepting to the trial court's denial of their motion and its refusal to give certain requested jury instructions.
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 store employee's detention of a customer constitute a valid defense against a false imprisonment claim under a statute requiring 'reasonable grounds' for suspicion of larceny, when the employee acts on an objective set of facts that would not cause a reasonably prudent person to believe the customer was shoplifting?
Opinions:
Majority - Spiegel, J.
No. The detention was not privileged because the employee lacked the 'reasonable grounds' required by statute to justify the detention. The court first affirmed that the employee's actions—physically grasping the plaintiff's arm, blocking his exit, and commanding him to return to the store in a public setting—constituted a restraint on his liberty sufficient to establish false imprisonment. The court then analyzed the statutory defense for merchants, which requires that the detention be based on 'reasonable grounds' to believe the person was committing larceny. The court held that 'reasonable grounds' is synonymous with the legal standard of 'probable cause' and must be judged by an objective standard: would the facts available to the employee warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that a theft had occurred. The court rejected the defendants' argument for a subjective test based on an employee's 'honest and strong suspicion,' reasoning that such a standard would grant merchants greater power than police officers and subject individuals' liberty to 'inarticulate hunches.' Applying the objective standard, the court concluded that the mere act of the elderly plaintiff putting on his own ascot just before leaving the store did not provide reasonable grounds for Goss to believe he was shoplifting.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for establishing that the 'shopkeeper's privilege' to detain suspected thieves is not a license for arbitrary action based on subjective suspicion. By equating the statutory 'reasonable grounds' standard with the objective 'probable cause' standard used in criminal law, the court ensures that a customer's liberty cannot be restrained based on an employee's hunch. This ruling protects consumers from unwarranted public humiliation and detention while still allowing merchants a defense, provided their actions are based on observable, objective facts that would lead a prudent person to suspect theft. It sets a clear, objective boundary on the power of private citizens (merchants and their agents) to detain others.
