Moore v. Pay'N Save Corp.
1978 Wash. App. LEXIS 2843, 581 P.2d 159, 20 Wash. App. 482 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person is falsely imprisoned when their liberty is restrained against their will through a reasonable apprehension of force, which can be implied from an accuser's conduct and assertion of authority, creating a question of fact for a jury. A shopkeeper's privilege to detain a suspected shoplifter is an affirmative defense requiring the shopkeeper to present evidence of reasonable grounds for the detention.
Facts:
- Patricia Moore entered a Pay'N Save store in Bellingham, Washington.
- She picked up a can of hairspray and stood in the checkout line for several minutes.
- Deciding not to make the purchase, Moore placed the hairspray on a counter inside the store.
- Moore then exited the store without the merchandise.
- After she left the store and was near her car, a security guard tapped her on the back.
- The guard displayed a badge, asked Moore about the hairspray, and then flipped open Moore's coat while accusing her of taking it.
- The guard asked Moore to return to the store to show where she had put the hairspray.
- Moore complied, went back into the store with the guard, and pointed out the hairspray on the counter.
Procedural Posture:
- Patricia Moore filed a lawsuit for false imprisonment against Pay'N Save Corporation and an unknown employee in a Washington state trial court.
- Pay'N Save Corporation filed a third-party complaint against Whatcom Security Agency.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Moore was not imprisoned and that any detention was privileged.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
- Patricia Moore, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Washington 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 security guard's public accusation of theft and request for a customer to return to the store create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the customer was unlawfully restrained, thereby precluding summary judgment on a false imprisonment claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Dore, J.
Yes. A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the customer was unlawfully restrained. False imprisonment occurs when a person's liberty is restrained by a reasonable apprehension of force, which does not require physical barriers. Here, the security guard's actions—displaying a badge, physically touching Moore by flipping her coat, and accusing her of a crime—constituted an assertion of apparent authority that was implicitly coercive. A jury could find that Moore's compliance was not voluntary but a submission to this authority. Furthermore, the defendants failed to establish their privilege to detain as a matter of law because they presented no evidence, such as an affidavit from the guard, demonstrating they had the 'reasonable grounds' for suspicion required by statute. Therefore, whether Moore was unlawfully restrained and whether the detention was privileged are questions of fact for a jury to decide.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the 'restraint' element of false imprisonment can be satisfied by psychological coercion and the assertion of authority, not just physical force. It reinforces that whether a person's belief of confinement is reasonable is typically a question of fact for a jury, making summary judgment for defendants in such cases difficult. The ruling also underscores that the shopkeeper's privilege is an affirmative defense, placing the evidentiary burden on the defendant to prove it had reasonable grounds for suspicion. This protects customers from unsupported accusations and detentions by requiring merchants to justify their actions with specific facts.
