The court will likely find that Robin Kincaid is not precluded for recovery for her false imprisonment claim against Barclay’s Department Store. False imprisonment is the unlawful detention of the person of another, for any length of time, whereby such person is deprived of their personal liberty. However, a plaintiff can be barred from recovery under the Georgia state law. A store is not liable for false imprisonment if the store: (1) had reasonable cause to detain a person; (2) detains that person; (3) conducts detention in a reasonable manner; and (4) conducts detention for a reasonable time. Ga. Code. Ann. § 51-7-61 (1979). The court will likely find that there was reasonable cause to detain Kincaid because she activated the antishoplifting
…show more content…
A store has reasonable cause to detain a shopper once the antishoplifting device alarm is activated, so long as the store has posted signs that the device is in use. Ga. Code. Ann. § 51-7-61 (1979). The court found in Estes that the store had reasonable cause to detain Estes because the store’s antishoplifting alarm sounded and the store had posted notices of the antishoplifting device’s use. Estes v. Jack Eckerd Corporation, 360 S.E.2d 649, 651 (Ga. App. 1987). The plaintiff in Estes activated the antitheft alarm while attempting to exit the store. Id. at 650. As a result, the store manager detained the plaintiff and investigated the items in her bag. While investigating her bag, the manager found that the alarm was triggered by a tag that the cashier left on one of the items. Id. The court found that the cashier’s negligence was not a material factor in determining if the store had reasonable cause to detain because the claim of false imprisonment “is an intentional tort, not a tort of negligence.” Id. at 651. In Mitchell the court held that Walmart had reasonable cause to detain the plaintiff because the electronic antitheft alarm was automatically activated by the plaintiff and the store had posted signs of the about their use of the antitheft device. Mitchell v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 477 S.E.2d 631, 633 (Ga. App. 1996). The plaintiff, Ms. Mitchell, was
A store has reasonable cause to detain a shopper once the antishoplifting device alarm is activated, so long as the store has posted signs that the device is in use. Ga. Code. Ann. § 51-7-61 (1979). The court found in Estes that the store had reasonable cause to detain Estes because the store’s antishoplifting alarm sounded and the store had posted notices of the antishoplifting device’s use. Estes v. Jack Eckerd Corporation, 360 S.E.2d 649, 651 (Ga. App. 1987). The plaintiff in Estes activated the antitheft alarm while attempting to exit the store. Id. at 650. As a result, the store manager detained the plaintiff and investigated the items in her bag. While investigating her bag, the manager found that the alarm was triggered by a tag that the cashier left on one of the items. Id. The court found that the cashier’s negligence was not a material factor in determining if the store had reasonable cause to detain because the claim of false imprisonment “is an intentional tort, not a tort of negligence.” Id. at 651. In Mitchell the court held that Walmart had reasonable cause to detain the plaintiff because the electronic antitheft alarm was automatically activated by the plaintiff and the store had posted signs of the about their use of the antitheft device. Mitchell v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 477 S.E.2d 631, 633 (Ga. App. 1996). The plaintiff, Ms. Mitchell, was