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

trialtestimonysummary judgmentappellee
statutesummary judgmentappellantappellee

Related Cases

Potter v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., 241 Conn. 199, 694 A.2d 1319, 65 USLW 2811, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 14,967
View Case »
Middleton v. Wallichs Music & Entertainment Co., Inc., 24 Ariz.App. 180, 536 P.2d 1072
View Case »
Tinkham v. Kole, 252 Iowa 1303, 110 N.W.2d 258
View Case »
Adams v. Southern Pac. Transportation Co., 50 Cal.App.3d 37, 123 Cal.Rptr. 216
View Case »
Park v. Hill, 380 F.Supp.2d 1002
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Weissman v. K-Mart Corp., 396 So.2d 1164

Facts

On September 12, 1979, Meyer Weissman was shopping at a K-Mart store when he was detained by the store's chief security officer, Alvarez, who suspected him of shoplifting. Weissman had re-entered the store with a prior purchase and was approached after he left through an unauthorized exit. The police were called, and Weissman was unable to produce a receipt for his items, leading to his arrest for shoplifting. The case against him was later dismissed for lack of prosecution when the main witness failed to appear in court.

The facts giving rise to the instant suit were somewhat in conflict. On September 12, 1979, the appellants were shopping separately in a K-Mart store on Biscayne Boulevard.

Issue

Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the appellees in light of the facts disclosed regarding false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution.

The issue before us is whether the court properly granted appellees summary judgment in light of the facts disclosed.

Rule

Under Florida law, merchants and their employees are not civilly liable for false imprisonment or arrest if they have probable cause to believe merchandise has been taken, detain the suspect in a reasonable manner for a reasonable time, and call a peace officer immediately after detaining the suspect.

Under Florida law, merchants, their employees, and peace officers who comply with the requirements of Section 812.015(3), Florida Statutes (1979), are not civilly liable for false imprisonment or arrest in detaining a person suspected of retail theft.

Analysis

The court determined that the police officer had probable cause to arrest Weissman based on the information provided by Alvarez, which was undisputed. However, conflicting testimony regarding Alvarez's actions and whether he should have investigated further created a jury question about the existence of probable cause for the detention and arrest by K-Mart and its security officer.

Applying this rule of law, we observe that the facts upon which officer Barnett relied in determining whether probable cause existed to arrest Mr. Weissman for theft were not in dispute.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the summary judgment for the police officer and Dade County due to the existence of probable cause for the arrest, but reversed the judgment for K-Mart and Alvarez, allowing the false arrest claim to proceed to trial.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.

Who won?

The prevailing party for the summary judgment was the police officer and Dade County, as the court found that probable cause existed for Weissman's arrest based on the undisputed facts.

We are satisfied, moreover, that the issue was correctly decided. The information furnished to officer Barnett by Mr. Alvarez was sufficient to provide him with probable cause to believe that Mr. Weissman had shoplifted.

You must be