Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Odem - 929 S.W.2d 513 (Tex. App. 1996)

Rule:

The essential elements of false imprisonment are (1) a willful detention, (2) without consent, and (3) without authority of law. The burden is upon the plaintiff to prove all three elements including the absence of authority.

Facts:

On March 14, 1992 Brandy Odem, then sixteen years old, accompanied by her male friend, Tony Chapa, went to the Wal-Mart Store in Falfurrias, Texas for the single purpose of purchasing a particular cassette tape. When they entered the store, they proceeded directly to the section of the store displaying cassettes, and when they did not locate the particular tape they were looking for, they began to leave the premises. On the way out of the store, as Chapa walked ahead of her, Saenz, working as a store greeter, confronted Odem in the presence of other customers, as she exited through the store's door. Odem had a purse looped over her bent arm as she walked out the door when Saenz suddenly grabbed Odem by the arm, turned her around, and reached into her purse to retrieve a blue package readily visible in Odem's purse, and which Saenz believed was store merchandise. Simultaneous with Odem turning around, Saenz told her that she suspected Odem had a blue and white shirt in her purse that had not been paid for. Chapa, who was ahead of Odem, turned around and witnessed the encounter. As he walked back towards the two, Chapa overheard Saenz tell Odem "take out the item you have in your purse" or "you have something in your purse." After seeing Saenz reach into Odem's purse, Chapa overheard Saenz apologize to Odem and explain to her that she had seen something in Odem's purse that resembled unpaid merchandise. Only then did Saenz release Odem. According to Odem, she did not feel free to go, "because if I was free to go, I would have left, but I wasn't. I was halted there and I stayed there." As Odem and Chapa left the premises, Odem related how she had been embarrassed by the incident. The following day, Odem's mother went to the Wal-Mart store to speak to David Perez, the store manager. At a conference held at the store, Saenz was called in and Perez offered to terminate Saenz if that was what Ms. Villa desired. On July 15, 1993, after Odem turned eighteen, suit was filed. In response to jury issues, the jury found that Odem had been assaulted, slandered and falsely imprisoned; that Saenz made a defamatory statement with malice, and that such statement was not qualifiedly privileged. The jury further found that Wal-Mart's negligence proximately caused the incident, that Wal-Mart had ratified Saenz's actions, and that Wal-Mart had been grossly negligent.

Issue:

Did the evidence presented support a finding of false imprisonment against Saenz?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court held that the evidence supported a finding that Saenz willfully detained Odem without her consent. The privilege exception was not invoked because appellant did not have a reasonable belief that Odem had stolen anything. Odem was assaulted without legal justification because Saenz offensively and intentionally grabbed Odem by the arm or purse, and the shopkeeper's privilege was not applicable to assault. Saenz’ defamatory remarks were not qualifiedly privileged because the communication was actuated by malice. Malice was not negated by Saenz’ subsequent apology because there was no evidence that the apology occurred in the same conversation and before the same people. The actual damages award was justified and not manifestly unjust or excessive, but, in the absence of proof of ratification, punitive damages could not be sustained because Saenz was not employed in a managerial capacity. The award was therefore reformed to reflect only actual damages.