Henry v. Shopper's World
200 N.J. Super. 14, 490 A.2d 320 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under New Jersey's merchant's privilege statute (N.J.S.A. 2C:20-11(e)), the term 'willfully concealed unpurchased merchandise' includes items worn in plain view as if they had been purchased, providing a merchant with probable cause to detain a suspect in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time without incurring civil liability.
Facts:
- Brenda Henry purchased a coat at a Shopper's World store.
- On December 23, 1981, the day after the purchase, Henry returned to the same store while wearing the coat.
- The coat still had a store 'fact' tag (indicating size, inspection, or content) fastened to its back.
- A security guard observed Henry browsing in the ladies department but not trying on any clothes.
- The guard saw Henry leaving the store without paying for the coat she was wearing.
- The guard stopped Henry outside the store and asked her to come back inside to prove she had purchased the coat.
- Henry was questioned in a back room by the guard and the store manager for approximately 30 to 45 minutes.
- During the questioning, Henry explained that she had bought the coat the day before and had forgotten to remove all the tags.
Procedural Posture:
- Brenda Henry (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Shopper's World (Defendant) in a New Jersey trial court, alleging false imprisonment and defamation.
- Shopper's World moved for summary judgment, arguing it was immune from civil liability under the state's merchant's privilege statute.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Shopper's World, dismissing Henry's complaint.
- Henry (Appellant) appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
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 have statutory immunity from a false imprisonment claim when they detain a customer for 30-45 minutes after observing her leave the store wearing a coat with a store tag still attached, even though the coat was not physically hidden from view?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, a merchant has statutory immunity under these circumstances. The merchant's privilege statute must be interpreted sensibly to achieve its purpose of protecting merchants from shoplifting. The statutory term 'concealed' is not limited to its literal meaning of 'hidden from view' but also includes merchandise worn or carried in plain sight as if it had been purchased. Observing a customer leave the store wearing merchandise with a store tag still attached constitutes probable cause to believe the item was unpurchased. Furthermore, detaining the customer for 30-45 minutes to investigate the situation, including discussing the purchase and allowing the customer to make a phone call, is reasonable in duration and manner. Therefore, the merchant is shielded from civil liability for false imprisonment and defamation by N.J.S.A. 2C:20-11(e).
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the protections afforded to merchants under New Jersey's shopkeeper's privilege statute. By adopting a functional rather than a literal definition of 'concealment,' the court allows merchants to act on circumstances that strongly suggest shoplifting, even when an item is in plain sight. This ruling provides greater legal certainty for store owners in detaining suspects but also shifts some risk onto innocent customers who may make honest mistakes, such as forgetting to remove a tag. The case establishes that the reasonableness of a detention's duration is a fact-sensitive inquiry but confirms that a period of up to 45 minutes can be deemed reasonable as a matter of law under similar circumstances.
