Caldwell v. K-Mart Corp., K-MART

Decision Date16 September 1991
Docket NumberK-MART,K-M,No. 1711,1711
CourtSouth Carolina Court of Appeals
PartiesPatricia CALDWELL, Respondent, v.CORPORATION, Richard Rocha and Darrell Mill, Defendants, of whomart Corporation is, Appellant. . Heard

Robert E. Salane and R. Lewis Johnson, both of Barnes, Alford, Stork & Johnson, Columbia, for appellant.

Thomas H. Pope, III of Pope & Hudgens, Newberry, for respondent.

CURETON, Judge:

Patricia Caldwell sued K-Mart Corporation for slander and false imprisonment resulting from an incident which occurred at a K-Mart store in 1988. The jury returned a verdict for K-Mart on the slander cause of action and awarded Caldwell damages on the false imprisonment claim. K-Mart appeals on several grounds. We affirm.

K-Mart's appeal raises three basic issues. The company asserts the trial judge erred in failing to grant its trial motions for directed verdict, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and new trial based upon the evidence. It also argues the court erred in the admission into evidence of portions of a loss prevention manual. Finally, K-Mart challenges the failure of the court to grant it a new trial based upon the excessiveness of the verdict. We address those issues seriatim.

TRIAL MOTIONS

At appropriate stages of the trial, K-Mart moved for judgment in its favor asserting Caldwell was not entitled to a verdict because its actions met the requirements of S.C.Code Ann. Section 16-13-140 (1976). This code section provides an affirmative defense to a merchant in an action for false imprisonment. The statute recognizes a defense if there is reasonable cause to believe the person has shoplifted merchandise and the person is delayed for a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner for investigation. The trial judge denied K-Mart's motions.

False imprisonment is defined as a deprivation of a person's liberty without justification. To establish the cause of action, the evidence must demonstrate (1) the defendant restrained the plaintiff, (2) the restraint was intentional, and (3) the restraint was unlawful. Andrews v. Piedmont Air Lines, 297 S.C. 367, 377 S.E.2d 127 (Ct.App.1989). Section 16-13-140 provides a defense to the claim if the merchant has probable cause to believe a person is taking his property and acts reasonably in his efforts to investigate the matter. Faulkenberry v. Springs Mills Inc., 271 S.C. 377, 247 S.E.2d 445 (1978); Gathers v. Harris Teeter Supermarket, 282 S.C. 220, 317 S.E.2d 748 (Ct.App.1984).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Caldwell, there was more than one reasonable inference concerning K-Mart's investigative actions. A store security employee observed Caldwell in the store. She was carrying a large purse. While in the store, Caldwell went to several areas looking at small items such as stain, hinges, and antenna wire. On occasion she bent down out of sight of the guard. Her explanation was she bent down to look at items on low shelves. The guard indicated he thought he saw Caldwell put something in her purse. Caldwell removed her glasses from and returned them to her purse a few times to read labels. After Caldwell left the store, the employee approached her in the parking lot and indicated he believed she had store merchandise in her pocketbook but was unable to say what he thought was put there. Caldwell opened the purse and the guard testified he saw no K-Mart merchandise in it. At that point, the guard told Caldwell to come back into the store with him. They then went to the areas in the store where she had been looking at items. They walked around the store for approximately fifteen minutes during which the guard said six or seven times that he saw her put something in her purse. Caldwell left the store after another store employee indicated she could go.

From this evidence, a finder of fact could draw more than one inference whether K-Mart's actions in investigating the suspected shoplifting were conducted for a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner. Caldwell's counsel conceded at oral argument that the initial stop in the parking lot was probably justified but asserted the actions of the guard in walking Caldwell through the store and continuing to accuse her of taking merchandise were not justified as part of a reasonable investigation. We think these facts created an issue for the jury to resolve and the trial judge properly denied the motions of K-Mart for directed verdict, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and new trial based upon the weight of the evidence. See Mains v. K-Mart Corp., 297 S.C. 142, 375 S.E.2d 311 (Ct.App.1988) (what is reasonable under Section 16-13-140 is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury).

INTRODUCTION OF MANUAL

During the course of the trial Caldwell sought to introduce portions of the K-Mart loss prevention manual into evidence.

                The portion in question dealt with shoplifting arrests.   K-Mart argued the manual was not relevant because the statute, and not the manual, governed the standard by which its conduct was to be judged.   The court admitted the manual into evidence.   We find no abuse of discretion
                

Evidence is relevant when it logically tends to prove or disprove a material issue in dispute. State v. Galloway, --- S.C. ---, 407 S.E.2d 662, 666 (Ct.App.1991). One of the material issues in dispute was the reasonableness of K-Mart's actions in investigating the suspected shoplifting. The manual contained guidelines for employees in making shoplifting arrests. For example, it stated as a basic step that before making an apprehension the employee "must see the shoplifter take our property." It also stated the employee should watch the suspected shoplifter continuously and only apprehend the person after he has had an opportunity to pay and is outside the store. Any apprehension should be made in the presence of a witness. Further, any interrogation should be done in privacy in the Loss Prevention Office.

While each case must be dealt with on its own facts, the loss prevention manual was relevant on the material issue of the reasonableness of K-Mart's actions. In negligence cases, internal policies or self-imposed rules are often admissible as relevant on the issue of failure to exercise due care. Eastern Brick and Tile Co. v. United States, 281 F.Supp. 216 (D.S.C.1986) (railroad rules); Felder v. K-Mart Corp., 297 S.C. 446, 377 S.E.2d 332 (1989) (testimony regarding store policy of placing mats at entrances). Similarly, since the statute in this case imposes a standard of reasonableness, but does not define it, the excerpts from the loss prevention manual would be relevant and helpful to a jury in deciding what was reasonable under the circumstances. We agree with the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • Garrison v. Target Corp.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • January 15, 2020
    ...then it is the duty of the trial court and the appellate court to set aside the verdict absolutely." Caldwell v. K-Mart Corp. , 306 S.C. 27, 33, 410 S.E.2d 21, 25 (Ct. App. 1991). Nonetheless, "the jury's determination of damages is entitled to substantial deference[,]" and the circuit cour......
  • K-Mart Corp. v. Washington
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • December 30, 1993
    ...and admissible to determine the reasonableness of K-Mart's actions in detaining a suspected shoplifter in Caldwell v. K-Mart, 306 S.C. 27, 410 S.E.2d 21 (S.C.Ct.App.1991). Other courts have found the manuals admissible to show whether an agent was acting within the scope of authority in cau......
  • Madison ex rel. Bryant v. Babcock Center
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • March 7, 2006
    ...of such rules may constitute evidence of a breach of the duty of care and the proximate cause of injury); Caldwell v. K-Mart Corp., 306 S.C. 27, 31-32, 410 S.E.2d 21, 24 (Ct.App.1991) (when defendant adopts internal policies or self-imposed rules and thereafter violates those policies or ru......
  • Myers v. Dollar Gen. Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • June 1, 2017
    ...action for assault and battery. False imprisonment is the deprivation of one's liberty without justification. Caldwell v. K-Mart Corp., 306 S.C. 27, 410 S.E.2d 21 (Ct.App.1991). In order to recover under a theory of false imprisonment, the complainant must establish (1) the defendant restra......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT