Brickman v. Robertson Bros. Dept. Store
Decision Date | 02 December 1964 |
Docket Number | No. 19997,No. 1,19997,1 |
Parties | Morris BRICKMAN, Appellant, v. ROBERTSON BROTHERS DEPARTMENT STORE, Inc., Leonard Schrager, Frances Diener, and Pinkerton's National Detective Agencies, Inc., Appellees |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Patrick & Anderson, South Bend, Daniel R. Connell, South Bend, of counsel, for appellant.
Arthur W. Goulet, Schindler, Van Tilbury & Kramer, Mishawaka, Edward N. Kalamaros, South Bend, for appellees.
Appellant herein, Morris Brickman, filed a complaint for damages for false imprisonment against the appellees, Robertson Brothers Department Store, Inc., et al., seeking damages in the sum of Twenty Five Thousand ($25,000.00) Dollars.
After the issues were properly closed, trial was had on the appellant's amended complaint before a jury. It appears, following the presentation of appellant's evidence and at the conclusion of said evidence, the trial court sustained the several appellees' motions for a directed verdict and directed the jury to return a verdict in favor of the several defendants-appellees. Thereafter, the jury returned the directed verdict in open court and the several defendants moved for judgment upon the verdict and judgment was entered thereon. Such action by the trial court is here assigned as error, [136 INDAPP 469] as is the overruling by said court of the appellant's motion for a new trial.
The pertinent ground in the appellant's motion for a new trial, in substance, is based upon the assignment that the decision of the court is contrary to law and the court erred in sustaining the several motions for a directed verdict to the jury.
Thus, we are called upon to consider whether or not there is any evidence of probative value to sustain the allegations of the appellant's amended complaint. In view of the court's finding, in sustaining said motion, it becomes necessary for us to consider the effect of said motion and the principles governing its treatment.
Our court, in discussing a peremptory instruction in the case of Ross v. Thompson et al. (1957) 128 Ind.App. 89, 96, 146 N.E.2d 259, quoting from the case of Garrett v. Estate of Hoctel, etc. (1957) 128 Ind.App. 23, 142 N.E.2d 449, 453, said:
Also, in the case of Boyd v. Hodson (1946) 117 Ind.App. 296, 299, 72 N.E.2d 46, we find the following pertinent statement:
Under the foregoing authorities, it was incumbent upon the trial court, after the appellees filed their respective motions for a directed verdict, to review only the evidence and the reasonable inferences which might be drawn therefrom most favorable to the plaintiff.
A concise statement of the evidence, in substance appearing in the record now before us most favorable to the appellant reveals that the appellant (plaintiff) entered the department store of the defendant, Robertson Brothers, in South Bend, for the purpose of exchanging, for a larger size, two pairs of children's socks previously purchased. After securing permission from a salesperson, he proceeded to make the exchange himself. Thereafter, the appellant descended[136 INDAPP 471] from the second floor to the first floor on an escalator and made his exit from the store by a revolving door and proceeded to walk north on Michigan Street. It appears at this point that his locomotion was stopped by one Frances Diener, an appellee (defendant) who grabbed the plaintiff's arm above the elbow and stopped his forward progress and ordered and demanded in a stern and firm voice carrying authority that the plaintiff accompany the said Diener back into the store as he had stolen two pairs of socks or had taken the socks without paying for them.
It appears at the time she, appellee Diener, stopped and restrained the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Middelkamp v. Hanewich
...Gwaltney Drilling, Inc. v. McKee, Ind.App., 259 N.E.2d 710, 22 Ind.Dec. 48 (1970); Brickman v. Robertson Bros. Dept. Store, etc., 136 Ind.App. 467, 202 N.E.2d 583 (1964); Ross v. Thompson et al., 128 Ind.App. 89, 146 N.E.2d 259 (1957); Garrett v. Estate of Hoctel, etc., 128 Ind.App. 23, 142......
-
Grooms v. Fervida, PS
...upon one's freedom of locomotion or the deprivation of liberty of another without his consent. Brickman v. Robertson Bros. Dept. Store etc. (1964), 136 Ind.App. 467, 202 N.E.2d 583. If a person arrested is detained or held by an officer for a longer period of time than is required under the......
-
Delk v. Board of Com'rs of Delaware County
...show a person's freedom of movement was in some manner restricted against his will. For example, in Brickman v. Robertson Bros. Dept. Store, Inc. (1964), 136 Ind.App. 467, 202 N.E.2d 583, this court held the plaintiff made a prima facie showing of unlawful restraint by evidence the departme......
-
Foley v. Colby, 1269A246
...to appellee. Gwaltney Drilling, Inc. v. McKee, Ind.App., 259 N.E.2d 710, 716, 22 Ind.Dec. 48 (1970); Brickman v. Robertson Bros. Dept. Store, etc., 136 Ind.App. 467, 202 N.E.2d 583 (1964); Ross v. Thompson, et al., 128 Ind.App. 89, 146 N.E.2d 259 (1957); Garrett v. Estate of Hoctel, etc., 1......