Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitdamagesattorneyverdictpunitive damages
damagestrialverdictpunitive damagescompensatory damagesappellantappellee

Related Cases

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Yarbrough, 284 Ark. 345, 681 S.W.2d 359

Facts

On March 19, 1980, the customer was shopping at Wal-Mart and was observed placing a felt tip pen, valued at approximately 59 cents, into her purse. After being approached by the assistant manager, she was taken to the store office where she was guarded until the police arrived. The customer was arrested for shoplifting but was later acquitted in municipal court. She subsequently filed a lawsuit against Wal-Mart for various claims related to the incident.

The facts in this case, viewed most favorably to the Appellee, are that on March 19, 1980, the Appellee was shopping in the Appellant's Towson Avenue store in Fort Smith, Arkansas for the second time on that date. On this particular occasion she was in the store for the purpose of purchasing dog food. While there she also picked up a coffee mug and a felt tip pen, value approximately fifty-nine cents (59¢). Appellee was observed by a store employee placing the pen on, or partially in, her purse.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether there was probable cause for the arrest and prosecution of the customer, and whether the jury could appropriately consider punitive damages.

The question the court is initially presented with is the issue of probable cause for the arrest and prosecution of the Appellee.

Rule

The test for determining probable cause is an objective one based not upon the accused's actual guilt, but upon the existence of facts or credible information that would induce a person of ordinary caution to believe the accused to be guilty.

The test for determining probable cause is an objective one based not upon the accused's actual guilt, but upon the existence of facts or credible information that would induce a person of ordinary caution to believe the accused to be guilty.

Analysis

The court found that the evidence presented raised jury issues regarding both probable cause and punitive damages. The assistant manager's actions, including his failure to follow established procedures for detaining suspected shoplifters and his decision to prosecute despite the City Attorney's recommendation to dismiss, indicated a lack of ordinary caution. The jury was justified in concluding that the customer was detained and that the store's actions were not reasonable under the circumstances.

The Appellant, relying upon Kroger Co. v. Standard, supra, contends that the trial court erred as a matter of law in submitting the issues of malicious prosecution and false imprisonment to the jury. This reliance is not well founded. The Kroger Co. Court found the Appellant had the benefit of the shoplifting presumption, Ark.Stat.Ann. § 41–2202(2) (Repl.1977), which arises with the knowing concealment of unpurchased items.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the jury's verdict, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the findings of false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.

The Appellant lastly contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts and the trial court erred in not granting Judgment N.O.V. The standard for substantial evidence is enunciated in Love v. H.F. Construction Co. Inc., 261 Ark. 831, 552 S.W.2d 15 (1977).

Who won?

The customer prevailed in the case because the jury found that Wal-Mart did not have probable cause for the arrest and that the store's actions were unreasonable.

The jury awarded the Appellee $850 compensatory damages and $20,000 punitive damages.

You must be