Fauria v. Doe, CA
| Decision Date | 11 December 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. CA,CA |
| Citation | 483 So.2d 148 |
| Parties | Cheryl FAURIA v. John DOE, Employer of/and Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc. and XYZ Insurance Company. 2878. 483 So.2d 148 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Paul S. Weidenfeld, Steven Lemoine, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.
Richard S. Vale, Blue, Williams & Buckley, Metairie, for Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc.
Before REDMANN, C.J., and SCHOTT, GARRISON, WARD and WILLIAMS, JJ.
This is an appeal by defendant Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets ["Schwegmann"] from a jury verdict awarding plaintiff Cheryl Fauria $50,000.00 in damages.
FACTS:
Plaintiff Fauria was shopping in one of defendant's stores with her boyfriend. She was six months pregnant at the time. While shopping, she picked up a spray can of "Static Guard," a product designed to eliminate static cling from clothing. She sprayed some of the product on her pants' leg, and then placed the can in her shopping cart. She later decided that she did not want to buy the product and instructed her boyfriend to put it back on a shelf. While plaintiff was waiting in the check-out line, a security guard employed by defendant approached her. He had with him the can of Static Guard with which plaintiff had sprayed her pants and demanded that she buy the can or else be charged with theft. She refused to purchase the item. She was given at least one other opportunity to purchase the Static Guard, but refused once more. Plaintiff was then placed under arrest by the St. Bernard Parish Sheriff's Department. She was handcuffed and taken to the police station, where she was booked with theft. Approximately thirty minutes later her boyfriend made bail for her. She had not been placed in a cell.
Later that evening, her water broke, and she subsequently went into premature labor. Twins were born, but died as a result of their premature birth. Both of plaintiff's previous children had been born prematurely, and she had been advised several weeks before of a potential problem with this pregnancy.
Plaintiff filed suit against defendant alleging that the twins' deaths were a result of premature labor brought on by the emotional stress inflicted upon her by defendant. After a trial by jury, plaintiff was awarded $50,000.00 in damages. It is from this verdict that defendant now appeals alleging that the trial court was in error in: (1) failing to allow a proper voir dire of the jury; (2) failing to dismiss certain jurors for cause; (3) conducting the trial in such a manner that the jury was unduly prejudiced; and (4) failing to grant a new trial or remittitur. Because we find that the evidence presented at trial clearly shows that plaintiff failed to carry her burden of proving that defendant was negligent, we must reverse.
La.R.S. 14:67 provides in pertinent part:
When plaintiff sprayed the Static Guard she obligated herself to pay for it. It did not matter whether she sprayed for a few seconds or used the entire can; she had used something belonging to defendant and unless she paid for it, a theft had occurred. Based upon his observations, defendant's security guard acted in a manner consistent with both the interests of his employer and of plaintiff; he offered her a choice: she could purchase the can (for $1.07) or be charged with theft. She was given this opportunity to exculpate herself at least twice. We note that legally the guard was under no obligation to allow plaintiff this option. See La.C.Cr.Pr. art. 215.
There is no evidence in the record that defendant's employees mistreated plaintiff in any way whatsoever. The treatment accorded to plaintiff by the defendant certainly met any standard of care that would be owed by a merchant to a pregnant woman suspected of theft. Plaintiff and her boyfriend testified that she was not abused, shoved, or jostled. Tr. at pp. 22 and 57. Furthermore, there is no evidence that plaintiff informed the guard of any problems that she might have had with the pregnancy.
We are aware that a jury's findings should not be disturbed absent manifest error. Canter v. Koehring Co., 283 So.2d 716 (La.1973); see also Arceneaux v. Domingue, 365 So.2d 1330 (La.1978). In this case, however, plaintiff failed to introduce any evidence of negligence on the part of defendant or its employees. All of the evidence presented at trial indicated that defendant's employees acted reasonably under the circumstances.
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the trial court is reversed.
REVERSED.
A supermarket customer does not have the right to test its goods (fruit, candy, or matter in spray cans) by consuming them. Defendant therefore did not owe a duty to plaintiff not to have her arrested for theft upon her refusal to pay for the goods that she admittedly (partially) consumed. Although the deputy sheriff's treatment of the pregnant plaintiff may have been unreasonable, it was not a breach of duty by defendant to have called the sheriff's office to ask for her arrest.
I concur with the majority's reversal of the Trial Court judgment, agreeing with Judge Redmann's observation that if there was indeed unreasonable conduct, it was on the part of the sheriff's department and constituted an effective superseding cause.
Additionally, I believe the dissenting opinions' reliance on the rule of Canter v. Koehring is unwarranted. The record shows that Judge Ortique did not allow contemporaneous objections to his evidentiary rulings, but rather required counsel to present all objections after the close of the evidence. Furthermore, the defense was prevented by in camera rulings from presenting or proffering evidence relevant to its case. To my mind, such procedures result in a trial record and a jury verdict which deserve little deference.
In the final paragraph of the majority opinion my colleagues find that defendant's employees acted reasonably under the circumstances so that the jury's finding to the contrary was clearly wrong. The question of what is reasonable conduct under the circumstances elicits a subjective response. I may be convinced that it was reasonable for the security personnel to cause this pregnant woman to be taken to jail because she had sprayed a minimal amount of Scotchguard on her clothing and then refused to pay $1.07 for the can; but I cannot conclude that someone else who finds such conduct to be an unreasonable reaction has clearly erred. The members of this jury were of the opinion that the defendant's conduct was unreasonable; I may disagree with this opinion but nontheless respect it. I would affirm the judgment.
This court may not substitute its own credibility determinations for that of the trier of fact. In Canter v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Constitutional Authority Giving Our Appellate Courts Jurisdiction of Fact Should Be Repealed
...The jury found in favor of the following motorists, but the supreme court reversed and rendered for the defendant preceding motorist. 20. 483 So. 2d 148, 149 (La. Ct. App. 4th 1985). 21. 495 So. 2d 1298, 1299–1300 (La. 1986) (a dental malpractice action). 22. McLean v. Hunter, 510 So. 2d 77......