Torts and Professional Liability

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 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.

Both the family, and the Wal-Mart acknowledge that the family was detained. The Wal-Mart associates believed that they had the right to stop the family based on the assumption of shoplifting, although they should not have physically restrained the family from advancing out of the store, nor denied Debra McCann’s offer of verifying the family’s identity.

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.

Case Review: Davis Supermarkets, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board 2 F.3d 1162 (DC. Cir. 1993)

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Walmart is the biggest importer of foreign products in the United States. For this, Walmart created a code of conduct for its foreign suppliers as “Standards for Suppliers”. To meet this code of conduct foreign supplier need to follow all the local law, rules and regulations of country and the working condition of industry like pay, hiring forced labor, child labor and discrimination. This code of conduct states Walmart may make on-site inspection to the foreign products that is going to be imported in Walmart USA by which it can cancel or reject the low standard product while site inspection. These are included in Walmart’s supply contract with its suppliers in foreign countries. The foreign workers who are importing goods to Walmart from China, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Swaziland and Nicaragua sued Walmart to the US district court alleging that they were third party beneficiaries to the Walmart’s contract to its foreign suppliers that due to the Walmart’s breach of standard they were due damages from Walmart. Their employees violated the standards because of Walmart failed to investigate on working condition of foreign suppliers. Even knowing the standards were being violated Walmart failed to implement the standards mentioned there in contract. The U.S. court held that the litigants were not intended third party beneficiaries to Walmart’s contract to its foreign suppliers and terminated the

Defendants, Mark and William Schenkly, have not satisfied the elements required to invoke the shopkeeper’s privilege defense. Conduct by the suspect which lead a shopkeeper to believe that the suspect is attempting to steal is enough to establish reasonable cause. In assessing reasonable cause to detain, Arizona courts consider whether appearances are sufficient to justify a shopkeeper’s belief is reasonable. Kon v. Skaggs Drug Center, Inc., 563 P.2d 920, 922 (1977); Gau v. Smitty’s Super Valu, Inc., 901 P.2d 455, 459 (1995). Defendant Mark Schenkly did not see Mr. Flynn take beer from the cooler, nor did he observe that the beer was missing from the cooler. The statute setting forth the requirements for asserting the shopkeeper’s privilege provides that detainment may only take place for the sole purposes of questioning or

Estrela advised me that Walmart did not want to press charges against the defendant the second time he exited the store and concealed several items in his clothing. Estrela stated "We detained him before he actually exited all poins of sale the second time." Estrela advised me that Walmart did want to pursue criminal charges for the fraudulent return.

Upon arrival, contact was made by the Lost Prevention Officer, Mr. Kenneth Miller (Complainant), for Kohl’s. When contact was made, Mr. Miller advised he observed a white female, Ms. Donna Porter (Arrestee), enter the store and witnessed her place (concealed) several items in black dotted bag (Kohl’s shopping chart), entered the fitting room for a few minutes and approached the cashier at the west side entrance. Ms. Porter purchased a pair of shoes and then passed the point of sale (cash register) without attempting to purchase the items she concealed.

On July 07, 2016, AP closed an internal merchandise case theft at the Bay Sherbrooke store for a value of $429.99. On Monday July 4, 2016, AP saw the associate taking a men’s shirt and bringing it to the jewelry counter and concealed the merchandise in a jewelry cabinet. Next day AP checked for the merchandise but it was no longer present. On Wednesday AP did a live surveillance and saw the associate bringing ladies wear merchandise to her counter, removed the hard tags, and put the merchandise into another retailer (Simmons) bag. During her lunch break she took the Simmons bags and left the store with without paying for the merchandise in the bag. AP did the parcel check and discovered the merchandise and the associate admitted immediately

An individual can lose a lot when they fall to professional malpractices. It can be their natural physical appearance. It can be their sense of confidence and self-esteem. It can also be their savings or future earnings. With so much at stake, it is promoted that professionals get a professional liability insurance.

On December 14, 2015, AP closed an internal merchandise theft at the Bay Rockland store for a value of $3,711. Information was received that the licensee associate received a large no receipt return and the investigation revealed that several other similar refunds had been received by the same associate. It was also discovered that this associate worked at Anjou store. During live surveillance the associate was observed to take 3 pieces of merchandise into the fitting and later no merchandise came out but believed to be in her bag. Parcel check was completed by AP and the 3 items were found inside of her bag. The associate admitted to several thefts at the Anjou store plus these 3 items at Rockland.

Under Texas law, would the manner of an employee’s detention of a customer to investigate the ownership of potentially stolen property, accomplished by violence and confinement, be found to be reasonable by a trier of fact, thus satisfying the second element of the Shopkeeper’s Rule, when the employee led the customer to the store’s break room and locked him inside, even though the employee dragged the customer by his arm in front of other customers, shoved the customer around the break room, detained the customer painfully, insulted the customer in view of the public, struck the customer in the back of the head, and insulted the customer in response to his outbursts of

The scenario is a horrendous string of coincidences that resulted in a tragedy. However, every party carries some responsibility for the eventual double amputation. This paper examines each of the parties, their possible liability and how that is covered by negligence law.

Can you elect to recover your damages from the resort only, even though Tex and Rex were primarily responsible for your injuries?