Mitchell v. Walmart Stores, Inc.
477 S.E.2d 631, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 3803, 223 Ga.App. 328 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under a shopkeeper's privilege statute, the activation of an anti-theft alarm provides reasonable cause for a merchant to detain a customer. Such a detention is lawful and immune from liability for false imprisonment if the manner and duration of the detention are reasonable under the circumstances.
Facts:
- Edith Mitchell, accompanied by her daughter, purchased several items at a Walmart store, including a television remote control.
- As Mitchell was exiting the store, an electronic anti-theft alarm sounded.
- A Walmart security guard, Robert Canady, forcibly stopped Mitchell by grabbing her shopping bag and commanding her to step back inside.
- Canady emptied Mitchell's bag and ran each purchased item through the security gate to investigate the cause of the alarm.
- The investigation revealed that a Walmart employee had neglected to remove a security tag from the remote control Mitchell had purchased.
- The entire detention and search of the bag lasted approximately ten to fifteen minutes.
- During the incident, the security guard never physically touched Mitchell or her daughter and never accused her of theft.
- After the bag was checked and returned, Mitchell was free to leave.
Procedural Posture:
- Edith Mitchell and her husband, William L. Mitchell, filed a lawsuit against Walmart Stores, Inc. in a Georgia trial court.
- The complaint alleged false imprisonment and other torts arising from a detention at Walmart's store.
- After the discovery phase, Walmart filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting it was immune from liability under Georgia's shopkeeper's privilege statute.
- The trial court granted Walmart's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Mitchell's claims.
- Edith Mitchell, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Georgia Court of Appeals.
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's detention of a customer for ten to fifteen minutes, initiated by an anti-theft alarm and involving grabbing the customer's bag but not their person, constitute an unreasonable detention that falls outside the protection of Georgia's shopkeeper's privilege statute?
Opinions:
Majority - McMurray, Presiding Judge
No. A merchant's detention of a customer under these circumstances is reasonable and protected by the shopkeeper's privilege statute. The statute (OCGA § 51-7-60) provides immunity from false imprisonment claims if a detention is based on reasonable cause and is reasonable in both manner and duration. Under a related statute (OCGA § 51-7-61(b)), the automatic activation of an anti-theft device establishes reasonable cause for the detention. The court found the manner of detention was reasonable because the guard only took Mitchell's bag, did not touch her person, and did not accuse her of theft, even if his behavior was 'gruff'. The ten-to-fifteen-minute duration was also a reasonable period for investigating the alarm's activation. Because both the manner and duration were reasonable, Walmart is entitled to statutory immunity.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant legal protection afforded to merchants by shopkeeper's privilege statutes, especially in the context of modern electronic anti-theft systems. The ruling clarifies that an alarm's activation is sufficient to establish reasonable cause, shifting the legal inquiry almost entirely to the reasonableness of the detention's execution. It establishes that customer embarrassment or an employee's rudeness alone are insufficient to defeat the statutory privilege. This sets a high bar for plaintiffs in false imprisonment cases against merchants, requiring them to show that the detention itself was objectively unreasonable in its method or length, not just subjectively unpleasant.
