McCann v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
210 F.3d 51 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
False imprisonment occurs when an actor intends to and does confine another within boundaries fixed by the actor. This confinement can be accomplished not only by physical force or barriers but also through implicit threats or a false assertion of legal authority that would cause a reasonable person to believe they are not free to leave.
Facts:
- Debra McCann and her two children, Jillian (16) and Jonathan (12), were shopping at a Wal-Mart store in Bangor, Maine.
- After paying for their items, two Wal-Mart employees, Jean Taylor and Karla Hughes, blocked the McCanns' exit path.
- The employees mistakenly accused the children of having been caught shoplifting on a prior occasion.
- Taylor told Debra McCann that the police were being called and that the family "had to go with her."
- The employees escorted the family to an area near the store exit and detained them for approximately one hour and fifteen minutes.
- During the detention, an employee pointed at Jonathan, accused him of stealing, and denied his request to use the bathroom.
- A security officer eventually arrived and confirmed that the employees had identified the wrong family, after which the McCanns were allowed to leave.
Procedural Posture:
- The McCanns brought suit against Wal-Mart in federal district court for false imprisonment and defamation.
- The district court granted Wal-Mart's motion to dismiss the McCanns' claim for punitive damages prior to trial.
- A jury found for the McCanns on the false imprisonment claim, awarding $20,000 in compensatory damages, but rejected the defamation claim.
- Wal-Mart filed post-judgment motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial, which the district court denied.
- Wal-Mart, as appellant, appealed the denial of its motions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
- The McCanns, as cross-appellants, appealed the district court's pre-trial dismissal of their claim for punitive damages.
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 the act of detaining individuals through an assertion of legal authority (e.g., claiming to call the police) and implicit threats, without the use of actual physical restraint, constitute confinement for the tort of false imprisonment?
Opinions:
Majority - Boudin, Circuit Judge
Yes. Detaining individuals through an assertion of legal authority and implicit threats constitutes confinement for the tort of false imprisonment. The court held that confinement, an essential element of the tort, does not require actual physical force or physical barriers. Following the Restatement (Second) of Torts, the court found that confinement can be accomplished by implicit threats or a false assertion of legal authority. In this case, the employees' actions—blocking the McCanns' exit, stating the police were being called, directing them to wait, and standing guard over them—were sufficient to induce a reasonable person to believe they would be physically restrained if they tried to leave or that the store was exercising lawful authority to detain them. The court rejected Wal-Mart's argument that Maine law requires "actual, physical restraint," finding that Wal-Mart had taken this phrase out of context from precedent. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the McCanns' claim for punitive damages, holding that while the employees' conduct was culpable, it was not "outrageous" enough to meet the legal standard of malice required for such damages.
Analysis:
This decision aligns the federal court's interpretation of Maine tort law with the modern majority view articulated in the Restatement (Second) of Torts. It clarifies that the "confinement" element of false imprisonment is not limited to physical restraint but extends to psychological coercion through assertions of authority. The ruling serves as a significant precedent for cases involving store detentions, putting retailers on notice that their employees' words and conduct can create liability, even without physical contact. This broad interpretation of confinement makes it easier for plaintiffs to bring false imprisonment claims based on perceived, rather than actual, physical restraint.
Unlock the full brief for McCann v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.