Thomas v. Colonial Stores, Inc.
Decision Date | 15 March 1960 |
Docket Number | No. 17626,17626 |
Citation | 236 S.C. 95,113 S.E.2d 337 |
Parties | Mrs. Louise THOMAS, Appellant, v. COLONIAL STORES, INC., Respondent. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Johnson & Smith, Spartanburg, for appellant.
Butler & Chapman, Spartanburg, for respondent.
This action, denominated by plaintiff as one for false imprisonment, comes before us on the pleadings. Defendant made a motion to strike a portion of plaintiff's complaint and plaintiff made a motion to strike the second defense of defendant's answer. The Court below granted defendant's motion and refused that of plaintiff. From this order plaintiff has appealed.
Briefly stated, plaintiff alleged in her complaint that upon leaving one of defendant's self-service grocery stores in the City of Spartanburg, where she had gone as a patron, she was stopped on the sidewalk by the manager and required to accompany him to the rear of the store where she was detained for fifteen or twenty minutes, at which time a police officer who had been summoned by the manager arrived; that at his direction, the police officer took her to the city jail where she was confined for approximately seven hours; that she was required to furnish bond in order to be liberated from jail and had to employ an attorney; and that no warrant was ever 'issued in connection with the arrest and plaintiff was falsely imprisoned, deprived of her liberty, humiliated, mortified and embarrassed.'
In its first defense, defendant admitted that upon leaving the store plaintiff was stopped on the street by its manager and detained by him until she was turned over to a police officer who took her to the city jail where she was kept for several hours; that she furnished bond and later employed an attorney and that no warrant was issued or signed. The remaining allegations of the complaint were denied. The second defense was as follows:
We shall first determine whether the Court below erred in refusing to strike defendant's second defense. While ordinarily an order refusing a motion to strike allegations in a pleading is not subject to interlocutory appeal, it is not an invariable rule. It seems to be conceded that the motion here is in the nature of a demurrer, involving the merits and going to the heart of the defense, and should be determined before trial. Under these circumstances, we shall consider the appeal. Rice Hope Plantation v. South Carolina Public Service Authority, 216 S.C. 500, 59 S.E.2d 132; DePass v. Piedmont Interstate Fair Association, 217 S.C. 38, 59 S.E.2d 495.
We have encountered some difficulty in determining exactly the basis upon which the claim of false imprisonment is made. There is no allegation that plaintiff was unlawfully arrested or that false charges were preferred against her. Nor do the pleadings disclose the disposition of these charges. It is stated in plaintiff's brief that a trial was had and the prosecution dismissed but this statement is not a part of the record on appeal and cannot be considered. Apparently the complaint is based upon the theory that regardless of the lawfulness of plaintiff's arrest in the first instance, the failure to procure a warrant or otherwise take any steps to prosecute her made her detention unlawful. But it is not necessary that we now construe the complaint or determine whether it states a cause of action. The case is not here on demurrer. Whatever may be the theory of the complaint, we think the facts stated in the second defense are relevant on the question as to whether plaintiff was lawfully arrested and detained.
In false imprisonment, the essence of the tort consists in depriving the plaintiff of his liberty without lawful justification. If the restraint or imprisonment complained of is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Van Schaick v. United States, Civ. A. No. 82-2263-15.
...reasonable time. See, Westbrook v. Hutchinson, 195 S.C. 101, 111-12, 10 S.E.2d 145, 149 (1940); See also, Thomas v. Colonial Stores, Inc., 236 S.C. 95, 100, 113 S.E.2d 337, 340 (1960). The South Carolina Supreme Court in Westbrook found a private citizen liable for failure to take an arrest......
-
Zimbelman v. Savage
...personal interest in the freedom of each citizen employs as a matter of right from restraint of movement. Thomas v. Colonial Stores, Inc., 236 S.C. 95, 113 S.E.2d 337, 339 (1960); Thompson v. Smith, 289 S.C. 334, 345 S.E.2d 500, 502 (1986). To establish a cause of action for false imprisonm......
-
Law v. South Carolina Dept. of Corrections
...of his liberty without lawful justification. Jones v. City of Columbia, 301 S.C. 62, 389 S.E.2d 662 (1990); Thomas v. Colonial Stores, Inc., 236 S.C. 95, 113 S.E.2d 337 (1960). To prevail on a claim for false imprisonment, the plaintiff must establish: (1) the defendant restrained the plain......
-
Prosser v. Parsons
...without lawful justification, and if the restraint or imprisonment complained of is lawful, the action fails. Thomas v. Colonial Stores, Inc., 236 S.C. 95, 113 S.E.2d 337. The legality of an arrest without warrant does not depend on the final results of the charge on which the arrest was ma......
-
Citizen’s Arrest in South Carolina: Shield or Sword?
...15A-404. [8] 59 S.C. 297, 37 S.E. 923 (1901). [9] 304 S.C. 332, 404 S.E.2d 202 (S.C. App. Ct. 1991). [10] Thomas v. Colonial Stores, Inc., 236 S.C. 95, 113 S.E.2d 337 (1960). [11] Tennessee v Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1694 (1986) [12] State v. Cooney, 320 S.C. 107, 463 S.E.2d 597 (1995)......