Hodges v. Meijer, Inc. - 129 Ohio App. 3d 318, 717 N.E.2d 806 (1998)

Rule:

Under Ohio R. Civ. P. 56, summary judgment is proper when: (1) no genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be litigated; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and viewing such evidence most strongly in favor of the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made. The party seeking summary judgment bears the burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists for trial. The Supreme Court of Ohio has stressed that trial courts should award summary judgment with caution, being careful to resolve doubts and construe evidence in favor of the nonmoving party. The appellate court must independently review the record available to the trial court and review the lower court's granting of summary judgment without deference to the trial court's determination.

Facts:

Plaintiff-appellant, Alladean Hodges, entered the Hamilton Meijer Store, intending to do some grocery shopping. Subsequently, appellant was detained by employees of the department store upon suspicion of shoplifting. When the property in question was found not to be that of the store, she was released. Thereafter, appellant brought an action against the store for false imprisonment and defamation. Meijer filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that appellant was detained only for such time as was necessary to determine if she had Meijer merchandise and that the detention was permitted under the shopkeeper's privilege as it was with probable cause. Meijer also asserted that there was no evidence that Meijer had engaged in the publication of defamatory statements about appellant. The trial court granted the store's motion for summary judgment on both claims and appellant appealed.

Issue:

1. Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment in favor of Meijer Store as to appellant’s false imprisonment claim?
2. Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment in favor of Meijer Store as to appellant’s defamation claim?

Answer:

1) Yes. 2) No.

Conclusion:

The court found that the evidence did not detail what prompted the store's employees to initially stop the customer nor was there any evidence that any employee saw the customer place any store property into her bag. The court observed that a jury could have found that detaining the customer without checking with an employee with whom she had previously spoken about what she was looking for was unreasonable. The court held that questions of fact existed as to whether the store had probable cause to detain the customer and that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the false imprisonment claim. Anent the second issue, the court held that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment to the store on the defamation claim because the appellant proved no publication of defamatory matter.