Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Castillo
| Decision Date | 17 July 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. C-3888,C-3888 |
| Citation | 693 S.W.2d 374 |
| Parties | SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY d/b/a Sears, El Paso, Petitioner, v. Concepcion G. CASTILLO, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Grambling and Mounce, H. Keith Myers, El Paso, for petitioner.
Caballero and Panetta, Barbara Masse and Raymond C. Caballero, El Paso, for respondent.
Concepcion G. Castillo brought suit against Sears, Roebuck & Company for slander, negligence, and false imprisonment. The suit was premised on a security incident occurring within the Sears store. Mrs. Castillo visited the Sears store to pick up several items which she had previously placed in the lay-away department. The merchandise was properly purchased, and a receipt given to Mrs. Castillo. As Mrs. Castillo was leaving the Sears store, a loud alarm bell sounded and her package was taken from her. Upon examination of the merchandise carried by Mrs. Castillo, a security device was located and removed. Mrs. Castillo testified that she was not restrained and stated that the store employee said "not a word" to her, and made no accusations. The trial court submitted the case to the jury on a false imprisonment theory.
The pertinent parts of the jury charge are as follows:
Special Issue No. 1:
From a preponderance of the evidence, do you find that the plaintiff was falsely imprisoned by the defendant?
Answer "She was" or "She was not."
We answer: She was not.
The remainder of the six special issues were conditioned on an affirmative finding; therefore, they were not answered. In addition, the trial court submitted the following instructions:
You are instructed that the term "false imprisonment" as used in this charge means the willful detention by another without legal justification, against her consent, whether such detention be effected by violence, by threats or by other means, which restrains a person from moving from one place to another.
Further you are instructed that under the law of this state a person reasonably believing another has stolen or is attempting to steal property is privileged to detain the person in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable period of time for the purpose of investigating ownership of the property.
The trial court instructed the jury as to the statutory privilege to make a reasonable detention in order to investigate a possible theft. TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 1d (Vernon 1984). The court of appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and held that the privilege to detain must be submitted to the jury as a special issue. 682 S.W.2d 432 (Tex.App.1984). We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.
The essential elements of a cause of action for false imprisonment are: (1) willful detention; (2) without consent; and (3) without authority of law. James v. Brown, 637 S.W.2d 914 (Tex.1982); Cronen v. Nix, 611 S.W.2d 651, 653 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Moore's, Inc. v. Garcia, 604 S.W.2d 261, 263-64 (Tex.Civ.App.--Corpus Christi 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Article 1d provides:
A person reasonably believing another has stolen or is attempting to steal property is privileged to detain the person in a reasonable manner...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nitsch v. City of El Paso
...or imprisonment Nitsch must show a(1) wilful detention; (2) without consent; and (3) without authority of law. Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Castillo, 693 S.W.2d 374, 375 (Tex.1985). In response to each of Nitsch's aforementioned state tort claims, the police officers have raised the defense of of......
-
Alejandro Garcia De La Paz v. U.S. Custom & Border Prot. Officers Jason Coy & Mario Vega & the United States
...claims that Plaintiff has failed to establish—or allege facts that, if true, would establish—the third. See Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Castillo, 693 S.W.2d 374, 376 (Tex.1985) (“The plaintiff must prove the absence of authority in order to establish the third element of a false imprisonment ca......
-
Jones v. Halliburton Co. D/B/A Kbr Kellogg Brown & Root (kbr)
...plaintiff show causation between her protected activity and the retaliatory conduct, unlike the TCHRA. Compare Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Castillo, 693 S.W.2d 374, 375 (Tex.1985) (to prevail under a false imprisonment claim, plaintiff must prove (1) willful detention, (2) without consent, and ......
-
Andrews v. American Nat. Red Cross, Inc.
...and (3) without authority of law." Fojtik v. Charter Med. Corp., 985 S.W.2d 625, 629 (Tex.App.1999); see also Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Castillo, 693 S.W.2d 374, 375 (Tex.1985). Where the defendant was not involved, either by participating in the arrest or directing it, the claim fails. See H......
-
Other Workplace Torts
...and • Without authority of law. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Rodriguez , 92 S.W.3d 502, 506 (Tex. 2002); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Castillo , 693 S.W.2d 374, 375 (Tex. 1985); Rerich v. Lowe’s Home Ctrs., Inc. , 26 I.E.R Cas. (BNA) 286 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v.......
-
Other Workplace Torts
...and Without authority of law. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Rodriguez , 92 S.W.3d 502, 506 (Tex. 2002); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Castillo , 693 S.W.2d 374, 375 (Tex. 1985); Rerich v. Lowe’s Home Ctrs., Inc. , 26 I.E.R Cas. (BNA) 286 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v.......
-
Other workplace torts
...and • Without authority of law. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Rodriguez , 92 S.W.3d 502, 506 (Tex. 2002); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Castillo , 693 S.W.2d 374, 375 (Tex. 1985); Rerich v. Lowe’s Home Ctrs., Inc. , 26 I.E.R Cas. (BNA) 286 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v.......
-
Other Workplace Torts
...and Without authority of law. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Rodriguez , 92 S.W.3d 502, 506 (Tex. 2002); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Castillo , 693 S.W.2d 374, 375 (Tex. 1985); Rerich v. Lowe’s Home Ctrs., Inc. , 26 I.E.R Cas. (BNA) 286 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v.......