Jackson v. Kmart Corp.
1994 WL 190030, 851 F. Supp 469, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6363 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Georgia's shopkeeper's privilege statute, a merchant is shielded from liability for false imprisonment only if they can establish both a reasonable belief that the plaintiff was shoplifting and that the manner and length of the detention were reasonable.
Facts:
- On December 18, 1991, Rocky Malone, a Kmart loss prevention manager, observed cashier Debbie Jackson scanning and then voiding multiple items for a customer, Kathleen Bell.
- Malone witnessed Jackson place the voided, unpaid-for merchandise into a shopping cart.
- Malone later stopped Bell as she attempted to exit the store with two shopping carts containing merchandise worth $834.86, for which she possessed a receipt for only one item valued at $4.99.
- Jackson was subsequently asked to report to an office in the rear of the store for questioning.
- During the questioning, the store manager allegedly told Jackson he could 'make a pass' at her, wished she were white because 'shoplifting always involved blacks', and refused to let her call her husband.
- When police arrived, Bell, the customer, told the responding officer that Jackson was involved in the theft scheme.
Procedural Posture:
- A grand jury indicted Debbie Jackson on charges of theft by deception.
- At her criminal trial, Jackson was acquitted.
- Jackson filed a civil suit against Kmart Corporation in Georgia state court for wrongful discharge, malicious prosecution, and false imprisonment.
- Kmart removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.
- Kmart filed a motion for summary judgment on all of Jackson's claims.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Georgia's shopkeeper's privilege statute, does a merchant avoid liability for false imprisonment at the summary judgment stage if the detention, though based on reasonable suspicion, was conducted in a manner that a jury could find subjected the plaintiff to gratuitous and unnecessary indignities?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Owens
No. A merchant does not avoid liability for false imprisonment if there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the manner of detention was reasonable. The court interpreted Georgia's shopkeeper's privilege statute, O.C.G.A. § 51-7-60, as requiring a defendant to prove both (1) a reasonable belief of shoplifting and (2) a reasonable manner and length of detention. Citing K Mart Corp. v. Adamson, the court held these two prongs must be read conjunctively, not disjunctively. While the grand jury indictment created a presumption that Kmart had a reasonable belief Jackson was shoplifting (satisfying the first prong), the manager's alleged conduct—including making a sexual threat and racist comments—created a jury question as to the reasonableness of the manner of detention. A jury could find that these actions subjected Jackson to 'gratuitous and unnecessary indignities,' thus precluding summary judgment for Kmart on the false imprisonment claim.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that Georgia's shopkeeper's privilege is a two-part, conjunctive test, meaning both reasonable suspicion and reasonable conduct are required for a merchant to be protected from liability. The ruling emphasizes that the manner of detention is a separate and critical element from the initial justification for the detention. It establishes that even with strong evidence of shoplifting, a merchant can still be held liable for false imprisonment if their employees engage in abusive, threatening, or undignified behavior during the investigation. This holding serves as a strong precedent for holding retailers accountable for the conduct of their staff during detentions.
Unlock the full brief for Jackson v. Kmart Corp.