Globe Discount City v. Landry
| Citation | 590 S.W.2d 813 |
| Decision Date | 15 November 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 6047,6047 |
| Parties | GLOBE DISCOUNT CITY et al., Appellants, v. Myrtle K. LANDRY, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Frank Gibbs, D. Craig Olivier, Vinson & Elkins, Houston, for appellants.
Michael Y. Saunders, Rodney V. Steinburg, Helm, Pletcher, Hogan & Burrow, Houston, for appellee.
Before McDONALD, C. J., and HALL and JAMES, JJ.
This is an appeal by defendants Globe Discount City and Hilma Schulze from $35,000 judgment against them in favor of plaintiff Landry, in a false imprisonment and malicious prosecution case.
Plaintiff Landry sued Globe Discount and its store detective, Ms. Schulze, for damages for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, alleging: Plaintiff was shopping the Globe store December 8, 1975; that she took articles she intended to purchase to the checkout counter and placed them on the counter so the checkout girl could ring up the purchases; that after the articles were rung up plaintiff paid the amount the checkout girl said she owed and proceeded toward the exit; that she was forcibly stopped by defendant Schulze and accused of stealing a sweater; that she was detained and falsely imprisoned; that she was at the instance of Ms. Schulze placed under arrest by police officers; that defendants filed criminal complaint against her; that plaintiff plead not guilty, and on trial on March 2, 1976 was found not guilty; that plaintiff has suffered injury as a result of such occurrence; and damaged in the amount of $125,000.
Trial was to a jury which found:
1) Plaintiff was falsely imprisoned by the actions of the employees of Globe Discount on December 8, 1975.
2) Plaintiff was maliciously prosecuted by Globe Discount.
3) Plaintiff was damaged $35,000.
The trial court rendered judgment on the verdict for plaintiff for $35,000.
Defendants appeal on 10 points:
Point 1 asserts the trial court erred in refusing to admit testimony of Denise Carpenter of statements made by Brenda Durmon and Myrtle Landry in the presence of the store detective Hilma Schulze, as operative fact evidence limited to the issue of notice to Schulze of any such statements.
Plaintiff was shopping in the Globe store on the evening of December 8, 1975; she picked up a sweater, a sack of candy and other items. Ms. Schulze, the store detective, was watching her. When plaintiff checked out her purchases at the cash register the sweater was not rung up and paid for. Ms. Schulze approached plaintiff as he was leaving the store with the unpaid for sweater, detained her, and initiated criminal prosecution for attempted theft. On trial for this offense plaintiff was found not guilty.
Plaintiff testified that when she came to the checkout counter she laid all her items on the counter; that she noted the checkout girl did not ring up her candy and called this to her attention, that the sweater was laying with the other items; that she assumed it was rung up; that she paid the bill requested by the cashier; walked away and was stopped by Ms. Schulze.
Plaintiff has steadfastly denied that she had shoplifted and denied intentionally taking the sweater without paying for same.
Ms. Schulze testified she was watching plaintiff; that plaintiff put the sweater on the counter; that she heard plaintiff say, "you forgot my candy"; that after plaintiff paid the amount rung up by the cashier she put everything except the sweater in a bag; hung the sweater across her arm and proceeded to the door; that she (Ms. Schulze) stopped plaintiff; asked her, "if there was anything she had forgotten to pay for"; that plaintiff said no; that (Schulze) said, "Ma'am what about the sweater"; that plaintiff said the sweater was hers; (Schulze) asked if she had a sales receipt for it; then plaintiff tried to give the sweater to her; and plaintiff said, "the young lady forgot to ring it up". The sweater still had the price tag on it.
Ms. Schulze then took plaintiff to an office in the store and questioned her. Present in the room were plaintiff, Ms. Schulze, store employee Carpenter and checker Durmon. Plaintiff denied that she had shoplifted and denied intentionally stealing the sweater.
Ms. Schulze testified that when the four were in the office: Ms. Durmon, the cashier, stated that she, "asked (plaintiff) if the sweater was hers and she said yes"; that plaintiff then said, "No you didn't say that"; that Ms....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chandler v. Chandler
...Power Electric and Hardware Company, 674 S.W.2d 400, 404 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1984, no writ); Globe Discount City v. Landry, 590 S.W.2d 813, 815 (Tex.App.--Waco 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Therefore, Appellant's first point of error is In his second and third points of error, Appellant a......
-
Martinez v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
...without authority of law, has been analyzed in Texas cases, and found to be a necessary element. Globe Discount City v. Landry, 590 S.W.2d 813, 815 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Gibson Discount Center v. Cruz, 562 S.W.2d 511, 513 (Tex.Civ.App.--El Paso 1978, writ ref'd Goody......
-
Western Co. of North America v. Grider
...he acted, whether true or false, is original and material evidence, and not hearsay.' " See also Globe Discount City v. Landry, 590 S.W.2d 813, 815 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Allstate Insurance Company v. Godwin, 426 S.W.2d 652, 654 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston (1st Dist.) 1968, ......