K Mart Corp. v. Adamson
386 S.E.2d 680, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 1239, 192 Ga. App. 884 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To claim immunity from a false imprisonment lawsuit under Georgia's shopkeeper's privilege statute (OCGA § 51-7-60), a merchant must establish both that the person was detained based on a reasonable suspicion of shoplifting AND that the manner and length of the detention were reasonable.
Facts:
- Michele Adamson entered a K Mart store with her daughter, bringing with her a new dress for the child that was not purchased at K Mart.
- The dress was on its original hanger and still had store tags attached.
- While inside the store, Adamson put the new dress on her daughter, removed its tags, and placed the tags in her pocketbook.
- A K Mart security officer observed Adamson's actions.
- After Adamson and her daughter finished their business and exited the store, the security officer confronted them.
- The officer requested Adamson accompany him to a back room, where he questioned her about the dress.
- After confirming K Mart did not sell that brand of dress, the officer apologized to Adamson and allowed her to leave.
Procedural Posture:
- Michele Adamson sued K Mart Corporation in a Georgia trial court for false arrest and false imprisonment.
- K Mart filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it was immune from liability under state law.
- The trial court denied K Mart's motion for summary judgment.
- K Mart (as appellant) was granted an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeals of Georgia to review the trial court's denial of its motion, with Adamson as 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:
To be shielded from liability for false imprisonment under Georgia's shopkeeper's privilege statute, OCGA § 51-7-60, must a merchant establish both the reasonableness of the initial suspicion and the reasonableness of the manner and length of the detention, despite the statute's use of the disjunctive 'or'?
Opinions:
Majority - Banke, Presiding Judge.
Yes, a merchant must establish both elements. The two prongs of OCGA § 51-7-60 must be read conjunctively ('and'), not disjunctively ('or'), to avoid irrational consequences and align with legislative intent. The court reasoned that a literal, disjunctive reading would lead to absurd results. For example, a store could detain someone who had done nothing suspicious so long as the detention itself was handled reasonably, or, conversely, a store could subject a person who acted suspiciously to an unreasonably long or degrading detention and still be immune from liability. Looking to the statute's legislative history and the principle of avoiding unreasonable outcomes, the court concluded that the legislature intended for both reasonable suspicion and a reasonable detention to be required for a merchant to be shielded from liability for false imprisonment.
Analysis:
This decision resolves a critical ambiguity in Georgia's shopkeeper's privilege statute by rejecting a literal reading in favor of a purposive one. By interpreting the statute's requirements as conjunctive ('and') rather than disjunctive ('or'), the court significantly strengthens protections for customers against unreasonable detentions. The ruling establishes that a merchant's reasonable initial suspicion is not a blank check; the subsequent detention must also be reasonable in manner and duration for the merchant to claim legal immunity. This precedent forces merchants to consider the totality of the circumstances and ensures the privilege is not used to justify overly aggressive or prolonged detentions of innocent individuals.
