Hood v. Zayre Corp.
| Decision Date | 21 July 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-2237,87-2237 |
| Citation | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1730,529 So.2d 1197 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1730 Suzette HOOD, etc. Appellant, v. ZAYRE CORPORATION Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Dwight Chamberlain and Horace Smith, Jr., P.A., Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Francis J. Carroll of Smalbein, Eubank, Johnson, Rosier & Bussey, P.A., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
The issue in this case is whether the trial court erred in entering a final summary judgment in favor of appellee Zayre Corporation, as against Suzette Hood, as next friend or natural guardian of Sharon Rebecca Davis.
Hood filed a complaint against Zayre, operator of a department store, for false imprisonment, based on the detention of Hood's daughter, Sharon Davis, on shoplifting charges. According to the complaint, the agents or employees of the store acted without probable cause in detaining Davis against her will. Zayre's answer raised section 812.015, Florida Statutes (1985) (immunity for merchants) as an affirmative defense. Zayre moved for summary judgment based on its contention that the store had probable cause to detain Davis and, therefore, under the immunity statute, there could be no civil liability for false imprisonment. Two affidavits were attached to the motion, one from a clerk and one from a security guard of the store. These affidavits supported probable cause for Davis's detention based on the alleged theft of a belt.
The plaintiffs also filed two affidavits. In the first, Sharon Davis stated that while shopping with her mother in the Zayre store she stopped to look at hats. Davis stated that the hats and hat rack that they were looking at were located one aisle away from the belts and that she was always separated from the belt rack by a rack of other merchandise which stood approximately five feet high and was the length of the aisle. Davis stated that although she was in the general area where the belts were sold, she was never close enough to the belts to touch them or look at them to buy. Davis added that as she and her mother left the hat area they walked past the aisle where the belts were sold. Davis stated that they continued to walk to another area of the store where clothes were sold, and that she tried on a dress, but didn't like it so put it back. The parties were stopped as they were leaving the store.
In the second affidavit, Suzette Hood stated that there were no belts sold in the aisle containing the hats and that after the parties looked at the hats they went to another area of the store to look at clothes where her daughter tried on a dress, but decided against buying it. After taking Davis and her mother to the security office, it was determined upon an examination of the belt that Davis was wearing that it was indeed a worn belt, and the store security officer apologized and dropped the charges.
Several depositions were also filed in the record. In Sharon Davis' deposition, she testified that at one point in the store she "kind of straightened out" her clothes after trying a dress on over them. Davis said this occurred just as she came out of the dressing room. She said that she was accused of taking the belt off the rack and tearing the ticket off, but said that she did not go near the belts except to try on the hat. Davis said she eventually showed the security people where the belt was worn and they decided to forget about the incident.
The trial court entered summary final judgment for Zayre, and the plaintiffs appeal. We reverse.
The ultimate issue to be resolved in this case is whether there was sufficient probable cause to detain Sharon Davis. If probable cause is found to exist, then Zayre would not be liable based on section 812.015, Florida Statutes (Supp.1986), which provides, inter alia:
(3)(a) A law enforcement officer, a merchant, a merchant's employee, or a farmer who has probable cause to believe that retail or farm theft has been committed by a person and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
LeGrand v. Dean, 88-1906
...of crimes. For these reasons I find the court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the sheriff improper. See Hood v. Zayre Corp., 529 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Harris; Johnson v. City of Pompano Beach, 406 So.2d 1257 (Fla. 4th DCA I would reverse. 1 Lemus v. State, 158 So.2d 143 (F......
-
Archer v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP
...of shoplifting agreed to accompany store personnel to store office, where they were held for about two hours); Hood v. Zayre Corp., 529 So. 2d 1197, 1198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (plaintiff accused of shoplifting taken to store security office); Hernandez v. K-Mart Corp., 497 So. 2d 1259, 1259 (......
-
Canto v. J.B. Ivey and Co., 91-539
...not be liable under count I for false imprisonment if the jury determined there was probable cause for the detention. Hood v. Zayre Corp, 529 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). Although the verdict form should have omitted the phrase "in an unreasonable manner and," we do not consider its incl......
-
Heller v. City of Ocala, 89-2173
...are in controversy the issues must be submitted to the jury. City of Pensacola v. Owens, 369 So.2d 328 (Fla.1979); Hood v. Zayre Corp., 529 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). Here, one officer described seeing the appellant allow a patron to hook his index finger inside the front of her T-Stra......