Choose one (1) case from the chapters assigned for the week (see below) and provide a summary (approx. 150 words) supporting either the plaintiff or the defendant based on the facts of the case and your interpretation of the law. You need to do some research on the case selected and provide links to that research which assisted you in your decision. Check at least 2 other sources as part of your independent research. Respond to another student’s posting for full credit.
Chapter 6 Torts and Strict Liability
Shoplifting and Merchant Protection Statutes
Shoplifting causes substantial losses to retail and other merchants each year. Suspected shoplifters are often stopped by the store employees, and their suspected shoplifting is investigated. These stops sometimes lead to the merchant being sued for false imprisonment because the merchant detained the suspect. Almost all states have enacted merchant protection statutes, also known as the shopkeepers privilege. These statutes allow merchants to stop, detain, and investigate suspected shoplifters without being held liable for false imprisonment if: There are reasonable grounds for the suspicion. Suspects are detained for only a reasonable time. Investigations are conducted in a reasonable manner. Proving these elements is sometimes difficult. The following case applies the merchants protection statute. Case 6.1 State Court Case False Imprisonment Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Cockrell 61 S.W.3d 774, 2001 Tex. App. Lexis 7992 (2001) Court of Appeals of Texas He made me feel like I was scum. That I had no say-so in the matter, that just made me feel like a little kid on the block, like the bully beating the kid up. Karl Cockrell Facts Karl Cockrell and his parents went to a store owned by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Cockrell stayed for about five minutes and decided to leave. As he was going out the front door, Raymond Navarro, a Wal-Mart loss-prevention officer, stopped him and requested that Cockrell follow him to the managers office. Once in the office, Navarro told Cockrell to pull his pants down. Cockrell put his hands between his shorts and underwear, shook them and nothing fell out. Next, Navarro told him to take off his shirt. Cockrell raised his shirt, revealing a large bandage that covered a surgical wound on the right side of his abdomen. Cockrell had recently had a liver transplant. Navarro asked him to take off the bandage, despite Cockrells explanation that the bandage maintained a sterile environment around his surgical wound. On Navarros insistence, Cockrell took down the bandage, revealing the wound. Navarro let Cockrell go. Cockrell sued Wal-Mart to recover damages for false imprisonment. Wal-Mart defended, alleging that the shopkeepers privilege protected the store from liability. The trial court found in favor of Cockrell and awarded him $300,000 for his mental anguish. Wal-Mart appealed. Issue Does the shopkeepers privilege protect Wal-Mart from liability under the circumstances of the case? Language of the Court Navarro claimed he had reasons to suspect Cockrell of shoplifting. He said that Cockrell was acting suspiciously, because he saw him in the womens department standing very close to a rack of clothes and looking around. We conclude that a rational jury could have found that Navarro did not reasonably believe a theft had occurred and therefore lacked authority to detain Cockrell. Navarros search was unreasonable in scope, because he had no probable cause to believe that Cockrell had hidden any merchandise under the bandage. Removal of the bandage compromised the sterile environment surrounding the wound. Decision The court of appeals upheld the trial courts finding that Wal-Mart had falsely imprisoned Cockrell and had not proved the shopkeepers privilege. The court of appeals upheld the trial courts judgment that awarded Cockrell $300,000 for mental anguish. Critical Legal Thinking Questions Did Navarro, the Wal-Mart employee, act responsibly in this case? Did Wal-Mart act ethically in denying liability in this case?
Please respond to discussion post: to D-Nunn.
For this discussion topic I chose the Grady v. Green Acres Inc. case from chapter 6 Torts and Strict Liability. The business Green Acres is a snow tubing business that has signage around the property along with tickets that all patrons must saying that all responsibilities for injury is their own risk. However, 18-year-old Ryan Grady sued the establishment to recover damages from an incident he encounter with another guest. The issue stated in the text is “does assumption of the risk preclude liability for injury resulting from the danger inherent in snow tubing” (). The plaintiff Grady previously been to Green Acres and to other place to partake in the snow tubing being aware of its danger the activity may cause. Assumption of risk has three requirements:
1. a person know of the risk
2. appreciates the risk
3. has the chance to avoid the risk
All three of which Grady was aware of which allows me to side with the court in the dismissal of this case. Assumption of risk is an affirmative defense in the law of torts under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Response at least a paragraph six sentences
2, Response to post: for Helen:
For this weeks topic I chose Chapter 25 Real property and Land use Regulation, The Willows, LLC v. Bogy. For this case Bogy and Hass are neighbors who have adjoining farmland. The railroad build tracks bisecting the property, so Bogy must access the other part of his land by driving on a road the runs across Hass’s property. Bogy did not ever ask if he could do this, so Hass got tired of it and blocked the road. The court granted in favor of Bogy being able to use the road because he used it for many years without it ever being an issue and its one of the only ways, he can access his land. I personally do not think this is ethical as I would not like someone having access to my land without my permission. I understand that he needs to access his land however that is an issue he needs to take up with the railroad since they bisected his land and cause him to go over to Hass’s.
Response should be a a Paragraph at least six sentences
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]