Colonial Stores, Inc. v. Fishel
288 S.E.2d 21, 160 Ga. App. 739, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 3187 (1981)
Rule of Law:
A merchant may be held liable for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution if its store manager fails to conduct a reasonable investigation into a suspected shoplifter's claims, constituting an independent tort, even if the security guard who initiated the detention is not found liable by the jury.
Facts:
- Hank Fishel was stopped by an armed security guard as he left a Big Star Supermarket, accused of taking aspirin he had in his pocket.
- Mr. Fishel explained he had purchased the aspirin moments earlier at Elliotts Drug Store, a different shopping center, and stated he was comparing prices.
- The security guard informed the store manager that he had apprehended a shoplifter, and the manager then telephoned the police.
- The security guard directed Mr. Fishel to the stock room, where he was searched and handcuffed to a large metal container.
- While detained, Mr. Fishel repeatedly proclaimed his innocence, suggesting they count the aspirin (two were already taken) and verify his purchase at Elliotts Drug Store where the box would be in the trash receptacle.
- Neither the security guard nor the store manager complied with Mr. Fishel's requests to investigate his claims.
- After the police took Mr. Fishel into custody, the store manager searched the supermarket for a "ditched" aspirin box, as claimed by the security guard, but never found one.
- The store manager admitted it was not his job to check out Mr. Fishel's story, assuming it was the police's responsibility, and stated the store tried to prosecute everybody the security guard apprehended.
Procedural Posture:
- Hank Fishel initiated suit against Colonial Stores, Inc., John Williams (security guard), and Certified Security Systems, Inc. (guard's employer), alleging false imprisonment and several other intentional torts.
- The case was tried before a jury in a trial court (court of first instance).
- The jury returned a verdict finding in favor of Hank Fishel and against Colonial Stores, Inc. for $400 as actual damages and $175,000 as punitive damages.
- The jury's verdict also found against defendants John Williams and Certified Security Systems, Inc. for zero dollars as actual damages and zero dollars as punitive damages.
- Colonial Stores, Inc. appealed the judgment entered upon this verdict to the Georgia Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can a supermarket corporation be held liable for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution based on its manager's unreasonable failure to investigate, even if a jury finds the security guard who initially detained the suspect not liable?
Opinions:
Majority - Pope, Judge
Yes, a supermarket corporation can be held liable for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution based on its manager's unreasonable failure to investigate, even if the jury found the security guard not liable, because the manager's actions constituted an independent tort. Georgia law grants merchants a privilege to detain suspected shoplifters for investigation, but this privilege is conditional; a merchant can be liable for failure to act reasonably where investigation is warranted before initiating criminal prosecution, as established in Melton v. LaCalamito. The store manager's admitted failure to verify Mr. Fishel's explanation, despite readily available means (checking the drug store or searching the supermarket for a 'ditched' box), provided sufficient grounds for the jury to find Colonial Stores liable for his unreasonable conduct. The court affirmed that the liability of Colonial Stores was not solely derivative of the security guard's actions but could be based on the independent tortious acts of the store manager. Regarding the verdict form, the court cited Parks v. Parks to uphold an ambiguous verdict if one construction supports it, and found the jury's decision to assess zero damages against the guard and his employer while finding Colonial Stores liable was permissible due to the manager's independent tort. The court also found no error in the trial judge recharging the jury to include actual damages alongside punitive damages, citing Ballard v. Turner, and upheld the $175,000 punitive damages as not excessive due to the manager's conscious indifference and refusal to ascertain the truth, which constituted aggravating circumstances under Code Ann. § 105-2002, per Felton v. Mercer.
Concurring - Quillian, C.J.
Chief Judge Quillian concurred in the judgment of the majority opinion.
Concurring - McMurray, P.J.
Presiding Judge McMurray concurred in the judgment of the majority opinion.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies that a merchant's liability for torts like false imprisonment or malicious prosecution is not always solely derivative of one employee's actions, but can stem from the independent tortious conduct of another agent, such as a store manager. It reinforces the duty of merchants to conduct a reasonable investigation before initiating criminal charges against suspected shoplifters, even when statutory privileges to detain exist. This ruling encourages greater diligence from management in verifying accusations and can lead to increased liability for stores that fail to adequately investigate a suspect's claims.
