H.E. Butt Grocery Co. v. Saldivar
1988 Tex. App. LEXIS 1381, 752 S.W.2d 701, 1988 WL 58087 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
False imprisonment occurs when a person is willfully detained without consent and without authority of law. A store lacks authority to detain a person if its belief of theft is not reasonable, and a person's compliance with a directive to remain is not consent if it is based on intimidation or a feeling of compulsion.
Facts:
- Diana Saldivar and her family were shopping at an H.E. Butt Grocery Company (H.E.B.) store.
- Saldivar had a pair of her own sunglasses clipped to her blouse.
- After paying for their groceries and exiting the store, a security guard tapped Saldivar on the arm.
- The guard accused Saldivar of stealing the sunglasses and told her to come back into the store.
- An H.E.B. assistant manager, Isabel Lopez, approached and displayed a price tag she claimed Saldivar had removed from the sunglasses.
- Saldivar, accompanied by her family, re-entered the store.
- The store manager, Carlos Gregory, examined Saldivar's sunglasses, compared them to store merchandise, determined no theft had occurred, returned the sunglasses, and apologized.
Procedural Posture:
- Diana Saldivar sued H.E. Butt Grocery Company in a Texas trial court for false imprisonment.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Saldivar, awarding her $10,000.00 in actual damages.
- The trial court entered a judgment on the jury's verdict.
- H.E. Butt Grocery Company, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals of Texas, an intermediate appellate court, alleging insufficient evidence. Diana Saldivar is the appellee.
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 grocery store commit false imprisonment when its security guard stops a customer outside the store, accuses her of theft, and directs her back inside, causing her to feel she cannot leave, based on an unverified report from an unidentified employee?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Dorsey
Yes. A grocery store commits false imprisonment under these circumstances because all three elements of the tort—willful detention, lack of consent, and lack of authority—were established by the evidence. First, the security guard's actions of stopping Saldivar, accusing her of theft, and guiding her back into the store constituted a willful detention. Second, Saldivar did not consent to the detention; her compliance was not voluntary because, as a nineteen-year-old woman confronted by a uniformed, armed male guard making a public accusation, she reasonably felt she could not leave. The court noted that a jury can consider the relative size, age, sex, and demeanor of the participants in determining if a party was so overawed and intimidated that they could not exercise free will. Third, the store lacked the legal authority to detain Saldivar because it did not have a 'reasonable belief' a theft had occurred as required by statute. The assistant manager acted on a second-hand report from an unidentified employee and did not personally witness any suspicious activity, which is insufficient to form a reasonable belief.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the 'without consent' and 'reasonable belief' elements in false imprisonment claims involving the shopkeeper's privilege. The ruling establishes that a plaintiff's subjective feeling of being unable to leave, when supported by objective circumstances of intimidation (such as the presence of an armed guard), can negate a claim of consent. Furthermore, it reinforces that the statutory 'reasonable belief' standard for detaining a suspected shoplifter requires more than an uncorroborated, second-hand report from an unidentified source, thereby placing a higher burden on merchants to justify such detentions.
