Proulx v. Pinkerton's Nat. Detective Agency, Inc.
| Decision Date | 20 December 1961 |
| Citation | 178 N.E.2d 575,343 Mass. 390 |
| Parties | Laura PROULX v. PINKERTON'S NATIONAL DETECTIVE AGENCY, INC. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
James Seligman and Charles L. Tucker, Fall River, for plaintiff.
William J. Fenton, Taunton, for defendant.
Before WILKINS, C. J., and WILLIAMS, WHITTEMORE, CUTTER, and SPIEGEL, JJ.
This is an action of tort for false imprisonment. At the close of the evidence the defendant moved for a directed verdict which was denied. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff which was recorded under leave reserved. Thereafter, the defendant moved that the court enter a verdict for the defendant under leave reserved. This motion was denied and the case is here on the defendant's exceptions to the denial of both motions and to certain portions of the judge's charge to the jury.
The plaintiff testified that she had been employed at the Fall River store of the J. J. Newberry Company as a clerk from March, 1950, and that on July 5, 1957, she was working at the toy counter. At about 4:30 P.M. on that day she was told to report to the 'sign room' which was located on the second floor of the store occupied by the company. There she saw two men who identified themselves as detectives from the Pinkerton detective agency. They told her that a shopper who had made a purchase from the plaintiff reported that the plaintiff did not 'ring up' the amount of the sale; that she did not give the shopper a receipt; and that she had kept the money from the sale. The plaintiff told the men that she did not keep the money but had rung up the sale and that she did not give the customer a receipt because the tape on the cash register had run out. She admitted that oftentimes she did not place a receipt in the bag with the article and that she knew this was a violation of the company rule.
The detectives informed the plaintiff that she had been observed 'fiddling with the paper bags underneath her counter.' The plaintiff explained that she did so in order to keep her counter neat. The plaintiff further testified that she offered to be searched and asked the detectives to search her counter but they refused to do so.
The plaintiff also testified that during the interview she had a conversation with the detectives concerning employees stealing from the company; that they asked her to give them the information regarding the thefts; that she would not give them the information; that she 'would not give any names' but was quite sure that 'something [was] going over the counter that should not have been going over the counter but she could never prove it.' During the course of the interview the detectives left the room for a period of five minutes while the plaintiff remained in the room. When they returned one of the detectives said, 'If you sign this paper we will let you off easy.' The plaintiff said, 'I won't sign it, because I didn't do it.' The detectives left the room again remaining out for about two minutes, during which time the plaintiff stayed in the room. When they returned the plaintiff was again asked whether she would sign the paper. She said 'No' and one of the detectives said, 'Well, then, as of now you are terminated from Newberry's.' She remained in the sign room for about one hour. Her normal working hours were from 9:30 A.M. to 5 P.M. On July 5, 1957, she punched the time clock at 5:30 P.M. and received her pay for that day 'including the time up to 5:30 P.M.' The plaintiff spoke to the store manager about being fired and was informed that the Pinkerton detective agency was employed by the J. J. Newberry Company and that the detectives had the right to fire her.
There was testimony from one of the detectives that the plaintiff was informed that the store had been 'tested by shoppers'; that the reports of the shoppers showed that 'certain policies' of the store had been broken; and that 'since her name had been mentioned on two or three of the reports they wanted her to clarify the reasons why her name was mentioned.' They discussed the rule of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Rogers
...means. See Foley v. Polaroid Corp., 400 Mass. 82, 89–90, 508 N.E.2d 72 (1987), citing Proulx v. Pinkerton's Nat'l Detective Agency, Inc., 343 Mass. 390, 392–393, 178 N.E.2d 575 (1961). There is no question here that the employees had reasonable grounds for believing that the defendant was s......
-
Foley v. Polaroid Corp.
...to confine Foley in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time for investigative purposes. Proulx v. Pinkerton's Nat'l Detective Agency, Inc., 343 Mass. 390, 392-393, 178 N.E.2d 575 (1961) ("If the circumstances are such that an investigation is warranted, a person may be detained for a ......
-
Dodge v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America
... ... , Boston, for defendant New England Merchants Nat. Bank of Boston ... Edward J ... A. B. & C. Motor Transp. Co., Inc. v. Department of Pub. Utilities, 329 Mass. 719, ... may be as well or better served through an agency of private enterprise than through a department ... ...
-
McLaughlin v. Meehan, 1681CV00866
... ... friends with a detective in the Department who had retired ... from ... PerkettPR, Inc., 83 Mass.App.Ct. 698, 699-700 (2013). In ... way." Proulx v. Pinkerton’s Nat’l Detective Agency, ... ...