Dominguez v. Globe Discount City, Inc.
470 S.W.2d 919 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the shopkeeper's privilege, a merchant who has reasonable grounds to believe a person has wrongfully taken merchandise may detain that person in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable length of time to investigate, and such a detention does not constitute false imprisonment.
Facts:
- Irma Dominguez, an Avon sales representative, visited a Globe Discount City store.
- While in the store, she paid for a lay-away item, handled other merchandise, and showed some cosmetic samples from her purse to a clerk.
- Dominguez then left the store without passing through a checkout register.
- As she walked toward her car in the parking lot, a store security guard called for her to stop.
- The guard asked Dominguez to open her purse.
- Dominguez complied, revealing the contents of her purse.
- The guard saw that no store merchandise was in the purse, apologized to Dominguez, and immediately returned to the store.
Procedural Posture:
- Irma Dominguez sued Globe Discount City, Inc. for false imprisonment in a Texas trial court.
- At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case at trial, the defendant, Globe Discount City, moved for a directed verdict.
- The trial court granted the motion for a directed verdict, ruling in favor of Globe Discount City.
- Dominguez, as Appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Texas Court of Civil 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:
Does a merchant's agent commit false imprisonment by stopping a customer in the parking lot and asking to inspect her purse, where the agent has a reasonable belief of theft and immediately apologizes and departs upon finding no stolen goods?
Opinions:
Majority - Preslar, Justice.
No. The security guard's actions did not constitute false imprisonment. A Texas statute grants merchants a privilege to detain a person in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time to investigate potential theft if they have reasonable grounds for suspicion. Here, Dominguez conceded the guard had a reasonable basis for the initial stop. The detention, which lasted only a few minutes and involved no physical contact or threats, was both reasonable in manner and duration. As soon as the investigation concluded and the suspicion was cleared, the guard apologized and ceased the detention, bringing the conduct squarely within the statutory protection and absolving the merchant of liability.
Analysis:
This case clarifies and applies the 'shopkeeper's privilege' codified in Texas law, establishing a clear safe harbor for merchants acting on reasonable suspicion of theft. The decision emphasizes that reasonableness in both manner and duration is key to the privilege. By finding that a brief, non-physical stop for the sole purpose of a quick inspection is reasonable, the court protects merchants from liability for false imprisonment in common loss-prevention scenarios. This precedent sets a standard where a plaintiff must show the detention was either without reasonable cause, excessive in time, or involved unreasonable force or threats to overcome the privilege.
