Mullins v. Rinks, Inc.
| Decision Date | 29 March 1971 |
| Citation | 56 O.O.2d 218,272 N.E.2d 152,27 Ohio App.2d 45 |
| Parties | , 56 O.O.2d 218 MULLINS, a Minor, Appellant, v. RINKS, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
Where there is nothing more before a court than that one claiming to have been unlawfully detained agreed voluntarily to act in conformity with the request of the defendant and there could be no reasonable apprehension of force, there is no imprisonment as a matter of law.
Sisson & Schaefer, Middletown, for appellant.
Baden, Jones & Scheper, Hamilton, for appelle.
This is an appeal upon questions of law from an order of the Middletown Municipal Court granting a summary judgment.
The plaintiff, appellant herein, when a minor, sixteen years of age, was a customer in a store operated by defendant, appellee herein. She was in the company of her mother, grandmother, aunt and niece. Plaintiff made several purchases and was about to leave the store with the others in the party when an assistant manager stopped her and asked that she step over to the jewelry counter. There, in the presence of the store manager and a uniformed man, also an employee of defendant, plaintiff was informd that 'a lady upstairs' had seen plaintiff 'put something in her bag which was not paid for.' The assistant manager took the bag from plaintiff, opened it and examined the contents. Then he stated to plaintiff that a certain pair of hose had not been paid for, and this was immediately denied by plaintiff who directed him to the cashier at the check-out counter through which she had passed. Upon inquiry, it was determined that plaintiff had, indeed, paid for the item which was returned to her. The assistant manager then made the statement: 'It is all right!'
Plaintiff alleges that the episode was witnessed by a number of people and seeks damages for shock, embarrassment and reimbursement for cost of required medical suffered as a result of the 'detention and search.'
Defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that 'reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the plaintiff,' and it is from the order granting such motion that this appeal is taken.
In deciding the question raised by the motion for summary judgment, the court below must have determined, by force of R.C. 2311.041, that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and that defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Defendant contends that there was no unlawful restraint in that plaintiff voluntarily complied with the request to accompany the assistant manager and that no words or conduct on the part of defendant could have induced in plaintiff a reasonable apprehension that she could not leave the premises without interference.
R.C. 2935.041 (entitled Detention of Shoplifters) provides in part:
'A merchant, or his employee or agent, who has probable cause for believing that items offered for sale by a mercantile establishment have been unlawfully taken by a person, may * * * detain such person in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time * * *.'
The reasonableness of the detention of a patron is a question for the jury. However, a question which is ordinarily one of fact may become one of law for the court to determine, as where the facts are undisputed, or where reasonable men would not differ in their deductions from the facts. 32 American Jurisprudence 2d 136, False Imprisonment, Section 74.
The case of Isaiah v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 111 Ohio App. 537, 174 N.E.2d 128, involved an action for false imprisonment wherein a jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. There, plaintiff, a patron, after passing through the cashier's station was told to come into a back roome by a uniformed and armed watchman. Plaintiff remonstrated and the officer took him by the elbow, 'jerked' him toward the room, where, in the presence of an assistant manager of the store, he was required to remove a coat and submit to a search of his person. When no stolen goods were found, plaintiff was told he could go.
In affirming the judgment in the Isaia...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kelly v. West Cash & Carry Bldg. Materials
...does not constitute false imprisonment. Moen v. Las Vegas Intern. Hotel, Inc., 90 Nev. 176, 521 P.2d 370 (1974); Mullins v. Rinks, Inc., 27 Ohio App.2d 45, 272 N.E.2d 152 (1971); White v. Levy Brothers, Inc., 306 S.W.2d 829 (Ky.1957). And there is no false imprisonment where an employer dec......
-
Hernandez v. Theriot
...does not constitute false imprisonment. Moen v. Las Vegas Intern. Hotel, Inc., 90 Nev. 176, 521 P.2d 370 (1974); Mullins v. Rinks, Inc., 27 Ohio App.2d 45, 272 N.E.2d 152 (1971); White v. Levy Brothers, Inc., 306 S.W.2d 829 (Ky.1957). And there is no false imprisonment where an employer dec......
-
Uebelacker v. Cincom Systems, Inc.
...lawful justification. Feliciano v. Kreiger (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 69, 4 O.O.3d 158, 362 N.E.2d 646; Mullins v. Rinks, Inc. (1971), 27 Ohio App.2d 45, 56 O.O.2d 218, 272 N.E.2d 152. In an action for false imprisonment, the plaintiff need only demonstrate that he was deprived of his liberty. T......
-
Young v. Carealliance Health Servs.
...274, 288 (Ky. Ct. App. 2009); Miller, 105 S.W.3d at 794; Newsome, 901 S.W.2d at 368; Faniel, 404 A.2d at 152; Mullins v. Rinks, Inc., 272 N.E. 2d 152, 152 (Ohio Ct. App. 1971). As the South Carolina Supreme Court has explained,The essential thing is the restraint of the person. This may be ......