Wright v. Kroeger Corporation, 26806.

• Decision Date: 21 January 1970
• Docket Number: No. 26806.,26806.
• Citation: 422 F.2d 176
• Parties: Eva Marin WRIGHT and Gerald Wright, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. KROEGER CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

422 F.2d 176 (1970)

Eva Marin WRIGHT and Gerald Wright, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. KROEGER CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 26806.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

January 21, 1970.

J. E. Tatum, of Gibson & Tatum, David A. Gibson, Houston, Tex., for appellants.

Ronald C. Kline, Bracewell & Patterson, Houston, Tex., for appellee.

Before GEWIN, COLEMAN and DYER, Circuit Judges.

DYER, Circuit Judge:

This diversity action for false imprisonment was submitted to the jury on four written questions and the jury awarded the plaintiffs $5,000.00 damages. Despite the fact that there was an inconsistency in the answers to the interrogatories the trial court determined that the defendant was entitled to prevail and entered judgment that the plaintiffs take nothing. We reverse and remand for a new trial.

On June 3, 1965, Mrs. Wright and her sister were shopping at the defendant's store in Houston, Texas. As the sister left the store she was approached concerning her suspected shoplifting there. She returned inside the store to the check-out area where her purse was searched by store employees and a radio found which she admitted taking. She then began to cry and Mrs. Wright, who was about to leave the store, noticed the disturbance and returned to the checkout area to find out what had happened. She was asked to leave and refused. She and her sister were then ushered to a backroom to await further investigation.

In the backroom a store employee asked Mrs. Wright to display the contents of her purse. She refused and the employee asked her if she would allow her purse to be searched if the police were called. She responded in the affirmative and a policeman was summoned. Upon his request Mrs. Wright revealed the contents of her purse which included a sunsuit that was still folded and pinned. She admitted that the sunsuit came from defendant's store but persistently stated it was purchased about two weeks before by her husband.¹ Subsequently, Mrs. Wright went to jail and charges were filed against her, but the case was later dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the prosecution against her, Mrs. Wright, joined by her husband as a plaintiff, filed the instant action for false imprisonment. Rule 49(a), F.R.Civ.P. provides that the court may require the jury to return a special verdict in the form of a special written finding upon each issue of fact. That was the procedure followed by the trial court in this case. The following are the questions submitted to the jury and the answers given to each:

QUESTION NO. ONE

At the time in question did the employees of Kroeger Corporation falsely imprison or unlawfully restrain Mrs. Wright?

Answer: Yes.

If you have answered Question No. 1 "Yes," and only in that event, then answer the following:

QUESTION NO. TWO

Was such false imprisonment or unlawful restraint by the employees of Kroeger Corporation without Mrs. Wright\'s consent?

Answer: Yes.

If you have answered Question No. 2 "Yes," and only in that event, then you will answer the following:

QUESTION NO. THREE

Did the employees of Kroeger Corporation at the time have reasonable grounds to believe that Mrs. Wright might have on her person stolen property belonging to that store?

Answer: Yes.

QUESTION NO. FOUR

What amount of money, if now paid in cash, will fairly and reasonably compensate Mrs. Wright for her false imprisonment, if any, or unlawful restraint, if any, by the employees of Kroeger Corporation on June 3, 1965?

Answer: $5,000.00.

Plaintiffs contend that the answer to Question No. 3 is inconsistent with the answers to the other three questions because a false imprisonment or unlawful restraint without consent (Questions No. 1 and 2) is, under Texas law and the instructions given to the jury in this case, a restraint without probable cause (Question No. 3). Defendant argues that the finding of the probable cause element in Question No. 3 is not inconsistent with the other questions, but that it merely supplies a complete defense to an otherwise good tort claim in much the same way a finding of contributory negligence would provide a complete defense to a negligence claim.²

It is our duty, where there is a view of the case that makes the jury's answers to the special interrogatories consistent, to resolve them that way. Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc. v. Ellerman Lines, Ltd., 1962, 369 U.S. 355, 82 S.Ct. 780, 7 L.Ed.2d 798; Wattigney v. Southern Pacific Company, 5 Cir. 1969, 411 F.2d 854; Waterman Steamship Corporation v. David, 5 Cir. 1965, 353 F.2d 660; Martin v. Gulf States Utilities Company, 5 Cir. 1965, 344 F.2d 34; R. B. Company v. Aetna Insurance Company, 5 Cir. 1962, 299 F.2d 753; McVey v. Phillips Petroleum Company, 5 Cir. 1961, 288 F.2d 53. However, in attempting that resolution we are bound by the rule that a special verdict must be construed in light of the surrounding circumstances, including the instructions of the court. McVey v. Phillips Petroleum Company, supra. In the instant case the jury was instructed that under Texas law a false imprisonment or unlawful restraint is one made without reasonable grounds to suppose that the detained person has any stolen property on his person.³ By its answers to Questions One and Two the jury found such an unlawful restraint. Nevertheless, in Question Three it also found there were reasonable grounds to believe that plaintiff had on her person stolen property belonging to the store. Since, by definition and under the charge to the jury, a false arrest or imprisonment is one for which there is no probable cause, finding number three is inconsistent with the other findings. The jury...