Lord v. K-Mart Corp.
1986 Ga. App. LEXIS 1504, 340 S.E.2d 225, 177 Ga. App. 651 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A merchant's polite questioning of a customer suspected of shoplifting, without physical restraint or commands to stop, does not constitute 'unlawful detention' for false imprisonment, nor does a customer's self-publication of the incident constitute 'publication' for slander.
Facts:
- On August 17, 1984, Mrs. Sharon Lord was shopping in a K-Mart store in Dublin.
- Several K-Mart employees observed Mrs. Lord behaving 'suspiciously,' including repeatedly looking over her shoulder, wandering aimlessly, placing her hand in a large purse, and kneeling with her open purse between her knees in the toy department.
- One employee concluded Mrs. Lord had shoplifted an unknown item and reported this suspicion to assistant store manager Helman.
- Helman followed Mrs. Lord out of the store to her car in the parking lot.
- Helman approached Mrs. Lord and, in a conversational tone, asked her if she had anything belonging to K-Mart in her pocketbook.
- Mrs. Lord acted surprised, then voluntarily offered her open pocketbook for Helman to examine.
- Helman, without further words or restraining Mrs. Lord, left her at her car and returned to the store.
- Mrs. Lord, feeling indignant, pursued Helman back to the store, loudly expressing her protests.
Procedural Posture:
- Mrs. Lord filed a lawsuit against K-Mart and its employee Helman in a trial court, asserting claims for false imprisonment, defamation (slander), and negligent false imprisonment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of K-Mart and Helman, effectively dismissing Mrs. Lord's claims.
- Mrs. Lord (appellant) appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Court of Appeals of Georgia.
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 store employee's polite questioning of a customer suspected of shoplifting, asking if they possess store merchandise, without physical restraint or commands to stop, constitute unlawful detention for false imprisonment or publication for slander, especially when no one else is present to overhear?
Opinions:
Majority - Birdsong, Presiding Judge
No, a store employee's polite questioning of a customer, without physical restraint or commands to stop, does not constitute unlawful detention, nor does a customer's subsequent loud protests amount to publication for slander by the store. The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment, finding no "detention" for the false imprisonment claims. Helman's actions—asking questions in a conversational tone without physical restraint, verbal commands to stop, or demands to return to the store—did not deprive Mrs. Lord of her personal liberty. Mrs. Lord herself admitted she felt free to leave at any time. The court noted that OCGA § 51-7-20 defines false imprisonment as unlawful detention, which was absent here, and cited precedents like Abner v. W. T. Grant Co. where similar questioning was not considered detention. Regarding slander, the court found no "publication" by K-Mart because the incident occurred in an empty parking lot, and direct evidence indicated no customers were present to overhear. If any publication of the alleged slander occurred, it was initiated by Mrs. Lord herself through her subsequent loud protests inside the store. The court concluded that Helman's actions to deter a putative shoplifter were neither unreasonable nor could the asking of the question be judicially invested with criminality.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the threshold for 'detention' in false imprisonment claims against merchants, establishing that polite questioning alone, without physical restraint or explicit commands, is insufficient. It reinforces the statutory protection allowing merchants to inquire about suspicious activity without automatically incurring liability. The ruling also firmly establishes that for slander claims, 'publication' must originate from the defendant, not from the plaintiff's own dissemination of the alleged defamatory statement. This provides significant protection for businesses seeking to deter shoplifting while remaining within legal bounds, as long as their actions do not involve actual restraint or public accusations.
