Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Castillo
28 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 579, 1985 Tex. LEXIS 1476, 693 S.W.2d 374 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court has discretion to submit the statutory shopkeeper's privilege to detain a suspected shoplifter as a jury instruction rather than as a separate special issue, so long as the overall charge correctly states the law.
Facts:
- Concepcion G. Castillo placed several items in the lay-away department at a Sears store.
- Castillo returned to the store and properly purchased the lay-away items, for which she received a receipt.
- As Castillo was leaving the store with her merchandise, a loud security alarm bell sounded.
- A store employee took the package from Castillo.
- Upon examination of the merchandise, the employee found and removed a security device.
- The employee did not speak to or make any accusations against Castillo.
- Castillo later testified that she was not physically restrained.
Procedural Posture:
- Concepcion G. Castillo sued Sears, Roebuck & Company in a Texas trial court for claims including false imprisonment.
- The trial court submitted the case to the jury solely on the theory of false imprisonment.
- The jury found that Castillo was not falsely imprisoned, and the trial court entered a judgment in favor of Sears.
- Castillo, as appellant, appealed to the Texas Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the shopkeeper's privilege must be submitted to the jury as a separate special issue.
- Sears, Roebuck & Company, as petitioner, sought review from the Supreme Court of Texas.
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 trial court abuse its discretion by submitting the statutory shopkeeper's privilege to detain a suspected shoplifter as a jury instruction, rather than as a separate special issue, in a false imprisonment case?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A trial court does not abuse its discretion by submitting the shopkeeper's privilege as an instruction rather than a special issue. The essential elements of false imprisonment are: (1) willful detention; (2) without consent; and (3) without authority of law. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving the absence of authority. The shopkeeper's privilege, codified in Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 1d, provides legal authority for a merchant to detain a person in a reasonable manner if they have a reasonable belief the person has stolen property. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 277, a trial court has discretion to submit jury charges broadly with instructions or through separate questions on each element. Because the trial court's charge in this case correctly stated the law regarding both false imprisonment and the statutory privilege, the court acted within its discretion.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the discretionary power of trial courts in Texas in structuring jury charges for false imprisonment cases. It clarifies that the shopkeeper's privilege is not an affirmative defense that requires a separate jury finding, but rather a provision that can negate the 'without authority of law' element of the plaintiff's claim. This gives trial judges flexibility under Rule 277 to streamline jury instructions, potentially making it more difficult for plaintiffs to isolate and challenge the privilege issue separately from the broader question of false imprisonment.
