Thomas v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarket
561 So. 2d 992, 1990 WL 62076 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Louisiana's merchant's immunity statute (La.C.Cr.P. art. 215), a merchant lacks 'reasonable cause' to detain a customer for theft if the suspicion is based on a mistake of fact that could have been easily verified by examining the merchandise in the merchant's possession. The immunity is strictly construed to apply only to suspected theft of goods and does not extend to detentions for suspected damage to merchandise.
Facts:
- On July 22, 1986, Josephine Thomas was shopping at a Schwegmann supermarket with her two young grandchildren, Shantell Brooks and Ariell Martin.
- While in the store, Thomas picked up and examined an open box of "Stick On Crazy Nails" for about five minutes before putting it back on the shelf.
- After paying for her groceries, as Thomas waited for her grandchildren near the exit, a security guard named Albert Roger approached her.
- Roger observed Thomas handling the package and believed she had opened it, scattered the contents, and stolen a tube of glue he incorrectly assumed was part of the kit.
- Roger escorted Thomas and her grandchildren to a private room where he and another guard, Richard Jackson Jr., accused her of stealing the glue.
- The "Stick On Crazy Nails" package, which Roger had retrieved and possessed before the detention, clearly indicated in three places that the nails used stick-on tape and did not contain glue.
- During the 15-20 minute detention, Thomas alleges the guards were verbally abusive, and that Jackson blocked the door and injured her arm by jerking the door closed while her hand was on the knob.
- At the end of the detention, Thomas was forced to pay for the package of nails.
Procedural Posture:
- Josephine Thomas, on behalf of herself and as administrator for her two minor grandchildren, filed suit against Schwegmann Giant Supermarket, Inc. in a Louisiana trial court for false detention and related injuries.
- The trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding Josephine Thomas $15,000 in general damages plus medical expenses.
- The trial court also awarded each of the two grandchildren $2,000 for unlawful detention.
- Schwegmann Giant Supermarket, Inc. (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment regarding both liability and the amount of damages to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
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 merchant's immunity under La.C.Cr.P. art. 215 protect a supermarket from liability for false imprisonment when its security guard detains a customer based on an unverified and incorrect suspicion that an item was stolen from a package?
Opinions:
Majority - Plotkin, J.
No, the merchant's immunity does not protect the supermarket. The immunity granted by La.C.Cr.P. art. 215 requires a merchant to have 'reasonable cause' to believe a theft of goods has occurred. Here, the security guard's suspicion that Josephine Thomas stole glue was not reasonable because he had the product's box in his possession and could have easily verified that it did not contain glue. A trained security guard's failure to conduct a minimal, reasonable investigation into the facts, when he had the time and opportunity to do so, negates a finding of reasonable cause. Furthermore, the court rejected Schwegmann's argument that the detention was justified based on suspected damage to merchandise; the statute is strictly construed and its immunity applies only to the 'theft of goods,' not property damage. The court also reversed the damages award to the grandchildren, holding they were not falsely imprisoned but were merely bystanders whose constraint was incidental to their grandmother's detention, and their emotional distress did not meet the legal standard of being 'serious and debilitating'.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'reasonable cause' standard required for a merchant to claim immunity from liability for false imprisonment. It establishes that a merchant's agents cannot rely on unsubstantiated suspicions when the means to verify the facts are readily available. The ruling imposes a duty of minimal investigation on store security, reinforcing that the quasi-police powers granted by the statute are not absolute. By strictly limiting the immunity to 'theft of goods' and excluding damage to merchandise, the court curtails the scope of the statute and protects consumers from detentions based on lesser infractions.
Unlock the full brief for Thomas v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarket