Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Resendez
962 S.W.2d 539 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A store employee has the authority of law to detain a customer to investigate the ownership of property if the employee has a reasonable belief the customer has stolen merchandise, and the detention is for a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner.
Facts:
- Lucia Resendez went shopping at a Wal-Mart store during her lunch break.
- While browsing, a Wal-Mart security guard, Raul Salinas, observed Resendez eating from a bag of peanuts marked with a Wal-Mart price sticker.
- Salinas then watched Resendez place the empty bag under a rose bush inside the store.
- Resendez purchased other items but left the store without paying for the bag of peanuts.
- Salinas followed Resendez into the parking lot, accused her of taking the peanuts without paying, and asked her to return to the store.
- Resendez objected, stating she had bought the peanuts the previous day at another Wal-Mart and could provide a receipt to prove it.
- Resendez accompanied Salinas to an area in the back of the store.
Procedural Posture:
- Lucia Resendez sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in a Texas trial court for false imprisonment and negligence, among other claims.
- A jury found in favor of Resendez, awarding her $100,000 for false imprisonment and $25,000 for negligence.
- The trial court entered judgment on the jury's verdict.
- Wal-Mart, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Texas court of appeals.
- The court of appeals, finding the negligence award to be a double recovery, modified the judgment to remove the $25,000 but affirmed the $100,000 judgment for false imprisonment against Wal-Mart.
- Wal-Mart then filed an application for writ of error to 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 store employee have the authority of law under the shopkeeper's privilege to detain a customer, thereby defeating a claim for false imprisonment, when the employee observes the customer consuming unpaid merchandise in the store, hiding the empty container, and leaving without paying for the item?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, the detention was performed with the authority of law under the shopkeeper's privilege, and therefore did not constitute false imprisonment. The privilege shields a shopkeeper from liability if a detention is based on a reasonable belief of theft and is conducted for a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner. Here, Salinas's belief was reasonable because he personally observed Resendez eating peanuts from a Wal-Mart-priced bag, hiding the empty bag, and leaving the store without paying. The 10-15 minute detention was a reasonable period of time as a matter of law, and there was no evidence the manner of detention was unreasonable. Therefore, all elements of the shopkeeper's privilege were met, providing Wal-Mart with the authority of law for the detention.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strength of the statutory shopkeeper's privilege as a complete defense to false imprisonment claims in Texas. It clarifies that the standard for a privileged detention is based on the statutory requirements of reasonableness, not a company's internal policies. The court also establishes that a 'reasonable belief' is a standard that can be met by direct observation of suspicious conduct, and that once the objective facts supporting this belief are undisputed, the issue can be decided as a matter of law, potentially removing it from a jury's consideration. This provides significant legal protection for merchants who act to prevent theft.
Unlock the full brief for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Resendez