Grant v. Stop-N-Go Market of Texas, Inc.

Citations: 994 S.W.2d 867; 1999 Tex. App. LEXIS 4167; 1999 WL 350948Docket: 01-96-01296-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; June 3, 1999; Texas; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Gerald Grant, the appellant, filed a lawsuit against Stop-N-Go Market of Texas, Inc. for false imprisonment and defamation. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Stop-N-Go, but the Court of Appeals of Texas reversed this decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. 

The standard for summary judgment requires that a movant demonstrate there is no genuine issue of material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A defendant can secure summary judgment by disproving any element of the plaintiff's claims. If the movant establishes this right, the burden shifts to the nonmovant, who must present issues that could prevent summary judgment. 

In reviewing the summary judgment, the court must consider all evidence favorably towards the nonmovant and resolve any doubts in their favor, assuming the truth of all favorable evidence. The court noted it would only consider grounds for reversal that were explicitly presented in the trial court.

Regarding the false imprisonment claim, Grant contended that material facts existed concerning the necessary elements: willful detention, lack of consent, and absence of legal authority for the detention. Stop-N-Go argued it negated the first two elements by asserting that Grant willingly chose to remain in the store and could have left. Additionally, Stop-N-Go claimed its actions were authorized by law under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 124.

To support its motion for summary judgment, Stop-N-Go submitted an affidavit from its store manager and excerpts from Grant's deposition, while Grant provided responses including his deposition excerpts, a police report, and responses to interrogatories.

Grant visited the Stop-N-Go store with his girlfriend, who remained in the parked car. After purchasing a can of beer, he intended to buy two bags of potato chips on sale for 99 cents. The clerk, speaking with a heavy foreign accent, incorrectly rang up the chips at 69 cents each and informed Grant that the chips he selected were not on sale. Although skeptical, Grant decided to purchase a different brand of chips as he was in a hurry. 

While at the counter, Grant noticed someone leaning into his car, prompting concern for his girlfriend’s safety. After confirming she was fine, he returned to the counter, paid for the chips, and remarked to the clerk about needing to improve his job performance. At that moment, store manager Calhoun accused Grant of stealing cigarettes, loudly enough for other patrons to hear. Calhoun insisted that the incident was recorded on surveillance and demanded the clerk confirm any theft. The clerk eventually acknowledged that a pack of cigarettes was on the counter. Despite Grant's insistence that he did not steal anything, Calhoun told him to be quiet, causing Grant to feel intimidated and trapped, fearing police involvement if he left.

Calhoun’s affidavit stated he was monitoring the surveillance footage when he observed Grant pick up an item from the counter, which he believed to be a pack of cigarettes. Calhoun claimed he saw Grant step partly outside while holding the item before returning to complete his purchase. However, he did not witness Grant return the item to the counter, leading him to conclude that Grant had passed the cigarettes out of the store.

Calhoun engaged Grant by briefly touching his arm to discuss alleged cigarette theft. After Grant denied the accusation, Calhoun perceived his demeanor as hostile and chose to call the police out of fear of confrontation. Grant told Calhoun to proceed with the police call. The police arrived in 15 to 20 minutes, during which time Grant mentioned picking up a dollar as he left the store, although Calhoun believed it appeared to be cigarettes. The officer reviewed the surveillance video, which Calhoun provided, but did not arrest Grant; instead, they left the store together. Calhoun asserted that he did not threaten or physically restrain Grant, who had a clear exit and was not prevented from leaving or told he was under arrest.

The surveillance videotape, deemed crucial for assessing Calhoun's belief regarding the theft, was not produced by Stop-N-Go. Inconsistent statements were made about its location, with conflicting reports suggesting it was either returned to Stop-N-Go or lost. Officer Anderson's police report indicated an argument between Calhoun and Grant, leading to Grant's temporary detention at the station, where the allegations were ultimately deemed unfounded.

Stop-N-Go contends, citing Morales v. Lee, that Grant was not willfully detained without consent, arguing that physical restraint is not the sole means of establishing detention. It posits that threats or acts that restrict movement can also constitute willful detention, and if a threat is alleged, it must evoke a reasonable fear of harm to the individual’s person, reputation, or property.

Grant provided sufficient evidence to raise genuine issues of material fact regarding his possible false imprisonment. He claimed that Calhoun, an employee, told him he could not leave and called the police, which contradicts Calhoun's affidavit stating he did not prevent Grant from leaving. This inconsistency creates a factual dispute about whether Grant was detained and whether he consented to remain in the store. Stop-N-Go contended that threats of calling the police do not constitute false imprisonment, but Calhoun's actions went beyond mere threats, as he actually called the police. Grant expressed fear of leaving due to potential repercussions, including harm to his reputation and further legal troubles.

Stop-N-Go invoked the shopkeeper's privilege under the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, asserting that its actions were legally justified. However, Grant argued that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the establishment of this privilege. The only evidence Stop-N-Go provided was Calhoun's account, which was contested by the absence of the surveillance videotape—considered the best evidence of the events—despite multiple requests for its production. The shopkeeper's privilege allows for reasonable detention of suspected shoplifters, contingent on a reasonable belief of theft, reasonable duration, and manner of detention.

The reasonableness of Calhoun's belief regarding Grant's alleged theft and the appropriateness of the detention must be assessed by a jury. While Stop-N-Go cited a precedent (Resendez) suggesting that a 10 to 15 minute detention is generally reasonable, this case involved a longer detention, as police arrived 15 to 20 minutes after being called. The situation requires a factual determination beyond the legal standards set forth in previous cases.

Grant's detention in police custody exceeded 80 minutes, which supports his claim of false imprisonment. The court concluded that Stop-N-Go did not negate any elements of this claim, and Grant presented genuine issues of material fact, making summary judgment inappropriate.

Regarding Grant's defamation claim, the court found that Stop-N-Go's defense based on shopkeeper's privilege was invalid since this privilege does not apply to defamation cases. Stop-N-Go also claimed a qualified privilege, asserting that Calhoun's defamatory statements were made during a theft investigation. However, for this privilege to apply, the statement must be made in good faith and without actual malice. The court determined that Calhoun's public accusations against Grant, made loudly in front of other patrons, precluded the invocation of qualified privilege. Additionally, Grant raised a factual issue regarding Calhoun's potential actual malice, arguing that Calhoun acted without first verifying the situation with the clerk.

In conclusion, the court ruled that neither the shopkeeper's privilege nor the qualified privilege shielded Stop-N-Go from Grant's defamation claim, rendering the summary judgment inappropriate.

Point of error two is sustained, resulting in the reversal of the trial court's judgment and a remand for further proceedings. In issue three, Grant contends that the trial court incorrectly granted summary judgment by not presuming the missing videotape was unfavorable to Stop-N-Go. Stop-N-Go counters that Grant is not entitled to this presumption due to a lack of evidence showing intentional destruction of the tape. The court does not resolve this issue, noting that Grant may still receive a jury instruction regarding this presumption based on relevant case law. The excerpt references the Morales case, where a false imprisonment claim was reversed due to a lack of evidence, distinguishing it from the current summary judgment context involving actual police involvement by Stop-N-Go. Additionally, it cites a Supreme Court ruling in which a jury's finding of false imprisonment was reversed because the detention was deemed reasonable. The court concludes that issues three and four need not be addressed because issues one and two were sustained.