Case 3.2 McCann v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 210 F.3d 51 (1st Cir. Me. Apr. 14, 2000)

Facts: On December 11, 1996, Debra McCann and two of her children were shopping at the Wal-Mart store in Bangor, Maine. After shopping and checking out, they were prevented from exiting by two Wal-Mart employees. They were told that the children were banned from Wal-Mart because of a prior shoplifting incident. The family was told that Wal-Mart had recorded and that the McCanns "had to go" with that employee to an area in the back of the store. They were also told that the police were coming to the store. Mrs. McCann consistently denied that the children had shoplifted and offered identification to prove who they were. Wal-Mart employees refused to look at McCann's identification. At one point an employee pointed at the boy and said he had been caught stealing, which made the boy cry and deny any theft on his part. At no time during the first hour or so did the Wal-Mart employees tell the McCanns that they could leave. The boy asked to use the bathroom and the request was denied. A store employee finally contacted an off-duty security guard who could identify the thief. That security guard came to the store and informed the employees that the boy was not the shoplifter from several weeks earlier. The Wal-Mart employee acknowledged her mistake and allowed the family to leave after being detained for over an hour.

Issue: Was there false imprisonment on the part of Wal-Mart? Legal Reasoning: The common law tort of false imprisonment is conducted by the actor which is intended to, and does in fact, confine another within boundaries fixed by the actor where, in addition, the victim is either conscious of the confinement or is harmed by it. The court further stated that "a reasonable jury could conclude that Wal-Mart's employees intended to 'confine' the McCanns 'within boundaries fixed by' Wal-Mart, that the employees' acts did result in such confinement, and that the McCanns were conscious of the confinement." Court Ruling: The McCanns brought suit against Wal-Mart for false imprisonment and were awarded $20,000 by a jury.

Questions: 1. What specific acts by Wal-Mart employees would be considered confinement?

2. Do you think that it was appropriate for Wal-Mart to detain the McCanns for a suspected prior shoplifting incident, even if they thought the boy was the thief? Explain your answer.

3. Was it appropriate for employees to lie to the McCanns about contacting the police, thus giving the family the impression that Wal-Mart had a legal right to do so? Explain your answer.

4. Did the refusal to allow the boy to go to the restroom increase, decrease, or have no effect on how the McCanns viewed their ability to leave the confinement? Explain your answer.