Weiler v. Herzfeld-Phillipson Co.

• Decision Date: 06 April 1926
• Citation: 189 Wis. 554,208 N.W. 599
• Parties: WEILER v. HERZFELD-PHILLIPSON CO.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

189 Wis. 554

208 N.W. 599

WEILER

v.HERZFELD-PHILLIPSON CO.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

April 6, 1926.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Milwaukee County; Gustav G. Gehrz, Judge.

Suit by Adeline Weiler against the Herzfeld-Phillipson Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Crownhart, J., dissenting.

The plaintiff, formerly a clerk in the Boston Store, a large department store of the city of Milwaukee, brought this action to recover damages for mistreatment to which it is claimed she was subjected immediately before her discharge from employment. The complaint sets forth three causes of action; one for false imprisonment, one for slander, and another for assault and robbery. The case was tried before a jury, and the verdict was against the plaintiff on the charge of assault and in her favor on the causes of action for false imprisonment and slander. The court set aside the verdict of the jury so far as it related to the cause of action for slander, and rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the sum of $500, the amount of damages fixed by the jury for the unlawful imprisonment. From that judgment the defendant brings this appeal.

The facts most favorable to the plaintiff, so far as they relate to the cause of action for false imprisonment, may be summarized as follows: A short time prior to December 14, 1922, certain facts and circumstances were called to the attention of the defendant casting doubt upon the fidelity of the plaintiff in her employment. On the 14th day of December, 1922, she was called to the office of Mr. Carter, who was assistant to the superintendent in charge of the service department. Mr. Carter's office consisted of a small room on the stairway between the first and second floors. The plaintiff, in obedience to the summons, presented herself at Mr. Carter's office at about 3 o'clock in the afternoon. Mr. Carter was in conversation with another person when the plaintiff entered, and she was told to sit down. She complied, and waited for the departure of the person with whom Mr. Carter was then conversing. Within a few minutes this party left, and Mr. Carter closed the door. The door had a self lock. It could not be opened without a key from the outside, but it could easily be opened from the inside.

Mr. Carter took some articles of merchandise from a drawer of his desk, and asked the plaintiff if she remembered selling the articles without making out a sales slip for them, and taking the money for her own use. She denied doing any such thing. Her sales slips were then sent for, and evidently canvassed with a view of ascertaining whether she had made a sales slip of the articles which she was accused of selling and appropriating the money received therefor. A rather long interview followed, during all of which time Mr. Carter insisted that she had sold the articles and appropriated the money to her own use, which she persistently denied. He urged her to make a confession, which she refused to make, and threatened that, if she did not make the confession, he would call the police patrol, and she would be taken to jail. Along about 5 o'clock Mr. Carter called a confidential stenographer, to whom he dictated a confession. In due time the stenographer transcribed the dictation, and returned it as transcribed to Mr. Carter. He then read it to the plaintiff and she signed it. When this was over, it was ten minutes to six. The plaintiff was then discharged from the employment. She went to the office and got her time, took it to the cashier, and was paid the amount due her.Bottum, Hudnall, Lecher & McNamara, of Milwaukee, for appellant.

O. L. O'Boyle, of Milwaukee, for respondent.

OWEN, J. (after stating the facts as above).

The jury found in response to the first question submitted in the special verdict that the defendant, through J. M. Carter, on the 14th day of December, 1922, unlawfully, willfully, and maliciously imprisoned the plaintiff, without her consent, in its office in its store building in the city of Milwaukee, Wis. In his decision upon motions after verdict, the trial judge said:

“The jury's answer to the first question is amply supported by the evidence of the plaintiff and by that of J. M. Carter as well. The room, referred to as Mr. Carter's office, is very small and cramped, is located off a stair landing midway between two floors, and has a very low ceiling. The fact that plaintiff was detained therein for three, or even two, hours is a circumstance of considerable weight, which, with others, should suffice to justify the jury's conclusion that plaintiff was willfully and unlawfully imprisoned, without her consent, in accordance with the rules stated in the court's instructions relating to said first question. The legitimate ends of reasonable inquiry and investigation as to the alleged irregularities which had come to Mr. Carter's notice, with the dictation and taking of the statement in evidence, would have been amply satisfied by an interview not to exceed one hour. That period was, however, considerably exceeded and, in view of the entire situation and all the attending...