McCann v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Louisiana Eastern District Court
210 F.3d 51 (1st Cir. 2000)
Fact:
Debra McCann and two of her children (Jillian, and Jonathan) were shopping in Bangor, Maine Wal-Mart on December 11th, 1996. After about an hour and a half, the McCann’s paid for their purchases and proceeded to leave the store. On the way out two Wal-Mart employees (Jean Taylor and Karla Hughes) blocked their path to the exit and stood in front of the McCann’s’ shopping cart. Note Taylor may have actually put her hand on the cart. The employees told McCann that her child had previously stolen from the store and was not allowed in the store. Defendant’s employees told McCann they were calling the police. Defendant did not actually
…show more content…
McCann was rewarded $20,000 in compensatory damages by the jury.
2. No. United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit rejected Wal-Mart’s appeal claiming that the plaintiff (McCann) did not prove false imprisonment under Maine law and that the court's jury instructions on false imprisonment were a mistake.
3. No. United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuits rejected Wal-Mart’s second appeal stating the district court should have charged that "actual, physical restraint". Basically wanting a description of what was not confinement.
4. Yes. United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit accepted McCann’s cross-appeal. The defendant (Huges) denied McCann’s son (Jonathan) the bathroom. Wal-Mart’s policy say’s to ask prior shoplifters to leave the store and not to rather detain them. The action of Hughes's pointing her finger at Jonathan accusing him of stealing was not considered reckless or negligent but “outrageous”. Jonathan was awarded $10,000 and $5,000 awarded to his mother and sister each.
Reason:
The Maine District Court focused on McCann’s claim that they were falsely imprisoned in the Wal-Mart store by Wal-Mart employees. The court looked at elements of the tort of false imprisonment under Maine law. The defendant referenced to the police is enough to say reasonable people would believe either that they would be restrained physically if they wanted to leave. The definition of false imprisonment can be
The shopkeeper’s privilege does not protect Walmart from liability under the circumstances of the case. Although Navarro had the right to exercise shopkeeper’s privilege, Navarro had not enough evidence to consider Cockrell as a suspect and it is not reasonable that Navarro asked Cockrell to take off the bandage. According to the merchant protection statutes, merchants can stop, detain, and investigate suspected shoplifters without being held liable for false imprisonment if (1) there are reasonable grounds for the suspicion, (2) suspects are detained for only reasonable time, and (3) investigations are conducted in a reasonable manner (Cheeseman, 2015, P.87). Navarro was not fulfilled for the third condition because the investigation is unreasonable on putting the suspect in a risk of death. Since there was a risk of bacterial infection and it may cause death after the wound area exposed under the air, Navarro should
The appeals court ruled that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant’s behavior was willful and wanton conduct.
The Georgia Shopkeeper’s Defense statute bars the Plaintiff’s suit. The statute bars recovery for false imprisonment by merchants or their agents when all of its elements are met. The Shopkeeper’s Defense statute provides in order to preclude recover the following three elements must be present: (1) reasonable suspicion of shoplifting, (2) reasonable time of detention, and (3) reasonable manner of detention. Ga. Code Ann. § 51-7-60 (2015). The Plaintiff and Defendant have agreed that the Plaintiff’s behavior on September 29, 2015, was sufficient to cause a reasonable person to suspect her of shoplifting, and that the length of the Plaintiff’s detention was reasonable. Therefore, the only element in dispute is the reasonableness of the manner in which the Plaintiff was detained. As such, R-Mart should be protected under the statute and the Plaintiff could only recover for false imprisonment if the facts alleged in the complaint demonstrates the manner was unreasonable.
The decision of the jury was based on the principles of comparative negligence. McDonald's was found guilty and responsible 80% for the coffee burn. Liebeck was found responsible 20% for the occurrence of the incident. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was not large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages, which was reduced to $160,000, and an additional $2.7 million in punitive damages, which was reduced to $480,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald’s and Liebeck, and both parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.
The firm took the case and went to work. The first hearing ruled that Beatrice Foods wasn’t to be held accountable, just W.R. Grace Company,
Finally, the district court applied Texas law to hold that the EEOC could not recover for Rafiq 's mental anguish because there was no evidence that the anguish or stress that Rafiq suffered "was so debilitating that it interrupted his daily life." In reaching this conclusion, the district court erred in two ways: (1) the availability of mental anguish damages for a Title VII claim is determined by federal law, not state law; and (2) the district court did not view the evidence in the light most favorable to the EEOC.
The Alison Peterson v. Grocery Depot Inc tort lawsuit is about an incident that occurs in countless grocery stores across the United States. Peterson is alleging Grocery Depot Inc. was negligent in their duty of care to her as a business visitor. Grocery Depot Inc. as a property owner has a legal duty to maintain the grocery store premises in a safe and hazard free condition or to warn a customer about any situation that could be dangerous. Peterson alleges Grocery Depot Inc breached this duty, which resulted in her slip and fall.
2. Facts: Plaintiff Irene George (P) is filing suit against Defendant Jordan Marsh Co. (D) for mental anguish and emotional distress which resulted in two heart attacks. D sold goods on credit to P’s emancipated son, who purchased them on P’s account. D alleged that P stated in writing that she would pay the debts (which she did not incur), even though it is understood that P did not make this guarantee. D then attempted to intimidate P into paying these debts she did not owe by calling her at late hours, by mailing her bills, by sending her letters stating late charges were being added on and that her credit had been revoked, and by numerous other tactics. P suffered great
Case Review: Davis Supermarkets, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board 2 F.3d 1162 (DC. Cir. 1993)
On a consolidated appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed in part and remanded. (721 F2d 550) The court held that Loudermill and Donnelly had been deprived of due process and that their compelling private interest in retaining employment, combined with the value of presenting evidence prior to dismissal, outweighed the added administrative burden of a pretermination hearing. The court affirmed the district court’s
In the case Tardif v. Wiebe, Tardif, a bouncer, was liable for physically assaulting a patron of a bar. But what is interesting is that the Hotel was vicariously liable for Tardifs “ excessive and unjustified force”. This applies to this case because Dale acted with excessive and unjustifiable force on Bob. In Tardif v. Weibe, the courts ruled the fact that the business instructed employees not to use force does not operate as a defense. So, even though Wal-Marts training video that clearly states that no chokeholds are to be used on any suspected shoplifter, Wal-Mart can not use this as a defense. Investing in training one’s staff could have prevented this.
Facts: Matt Theurer was an 18 year old adult that worked at McDonald’s part time. His friends and family worried about him because he had many extra-curricular activities, worked for the National Guard, and worked for McDonalds. McDonald’s informal policy did not allow high school students to work more than one midnight shift per week or split shifts. There was a special clean-up week McDonald’s held, Theurer worked five nights. One night he worked until midnight, another until 11:30pm, two nights until 9pm, and another until 11pm. On Monday, April 4th, 1988, Theurer worked from 3:30 until 7:30pm, followed by the clean up shift beginning at midnight
Renee McDonald (“Plaintiff”) allegedly sustained personal injuries on October 8, 2015 while shopping at a store owned and operated by Costco (“Defendant”) in Brooklyn Park, Maryland. According to the plaintiff, while walking through the store, she tripped on mop water which caused her to fall to the ground and suffer “severe bodily injuries.” The Plaintiff claims that her fall was caused by the mop water. The mopped area had been secured with a yellow caution sign that warned customers of the wet floor. At the time of the Plaintiff’s fall, however, the sign had fallen down and was lying on the floor. Plaintiff alleges that the store did not have proper signage to warn of the hazardous condition.
This paper will consider the facts associated with the case of Stella Liebeck versus McDonald’s, resulting from Ms. Liebeck’s efforts to collect for damages sustained when she spilled extremely hot coffee into her lap in 1992. The issues, applicable laws and the conclusion the jury reached will also be covered as well as the subsequent impacts on American tort law following this decision.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is the world 's largest retail enterprise, with total revenue of $421.8 billion and a net income of $16.4 billion in 2011. 1 It is also the world 's largest employer, with 2.1 million employees worldwide in 2010 2, not including workers hired by its providers. In my opinion, Wal-Mart provides a clear illustration through which to look at how many multinational companies (MNCs) take part in an illegal and unethical behavior. They use their bargaining power and market control to pressure countries to overlook environmental degradation and violation of national labor laws. They dictate expected pricing for products, particularly through imports from overseas countries. Labor is fulfilled mostly by underage and underpaid employees. In the United States, since 2005, Wal-Mart has paid about $1 billion in damages to U.S. employees in six different cases related to unpaid work. 3 Furthermore, Wal-Mart opposes any form of collective action, even when employees are not seeking unionization, but simply more respect. 4 The fact that Wal-Mart opposes unions exist. The company has a long history of fighting them, to the point of closing stores after employees organize. Managers have been instructed to talk to their teams about why unions are so unwanted in their business. Overseas, the company was involved in a series of scandals, including multiple cases of bribery. In April 2012, The New York Times published a story that