Last week Sarah and a friend were enjoying a delightful dinner at the Westly Inn. Everything had gone well until it was time for dessert. The waiter offered Sarah's companion the dessert menu. When Sarah asked for one for herself, the waiter replied, "Absolutely not. The last thing you need is more calories, you fat cow." Naturally Sarah was outraged. She jumped up, threw $50 on the table, and proceeded toward the doorway.

Unfortunately, her napkin hid the money, and the waiter thought she was trying to leave the restaurant without paying. He grabbed her by the arm and in front of all the customers accused her of trying to leave without paying.

When the waiter grabbed her arm, the strap to her purse broke. The purse fell to the floor, spilling its contents.

Sarah began to search under the tables and chairs, looking for her valuables. Five minutes later the waiter discovered the $50 Sarah had left on the table and told her she was free to go. However, it took Sarah nearly 20 more minutes to collect all of her purse's contents. She then left the restaurant.

Sarah is understandably upset over what occurred at the restaurant and wants to know whether or not she has grounds for a lawsuit, based on the waiter's actions.

The first step is to determine if there is any immediate need to gather additional facts beyond those you obtained through the client interview. For now, we will assume the supervising attorney decided that you have sufficient facts to proceed with the next step.

Step two involves finding a relevant statute. Based on the facts from the interview, the supervising attorney could decide that Sarah might have a good claim for false imprisonment. False imprisonment is an intentional tort. It occurs whenever one person unlawfully detains another person against his or her will. In your search to determine if there are any statutes that might govern the situation, you find the following state statute:

In an action for false imprisonment by reason of having been detained for questioning on or in the immediate premises of a merchant, if such person was detained in a reasonable manner and for not more than a reasonable length of time by the merchant or his servant and if there were reasonable grounds to believe that the person so detained was committing or attempting to commit larceny of goods for sale on such premises, it shall be a defense to such action.

Step three involves deciding whether the statute even applies to Sarah's situation. Is a restaurant a "merchant"? If it is not, the statute will not apply. Assume the statute does not define the term merchant. How would you argue that a restaurant should be considered a merchant? That it should not? Besides using your common sense about the plain meaning of the term, remember to think about why the legislature enacted such a statute. Who were the legislators trying to protect and why? Should that protection be extended to restaurant owners?

If you are unsure about whether the statute would apply to the restaurant, the safest course is to assume that it would and to continue with your analysis. Never analyze only part of a problem and then stop. Why? Because you might be wrong. For example, assume that decided a restaurant is not a "merchant" and stopped your analysis there. If a court were later to decide otherwise and asked your boss his thoughts on the remaining issues and if he relied solely on your work, he would be unprepared to answer.Therefore, you should continue with your analysis of the statute. To do that, you must break the statute down into the following elements:

It will be a defense to false imprisonment if the person was,

1. detained for questioning on or in the immediate premises of a merchant,

2. if such person was detained in a reasonable manner and

3. for not more than a reasonable length of time

4. by the merchant or his servant and

5. if there were reasonable grounds to believe

6. that the person so detained was committing or attempting to commit larceny

7. of goods for sale on such premises.

When reading statutes, pay careful attention to every word. Some words are especially important. For example, always take note of whether the legislature used a mandatory word, such as shall, or a discretionary word, such as may. Double-check to see whether the elements of the statute are connected with "and" or "or." If the statute uses "and," each part connected by "and" must be satisfied. If the statute uses "or," the parts are alternatives to each other. Note how many times "and" and "or" are used in this statute.

Now, based on your client's facts, you need to determine which, if any, of these elements create an issuethat is, an argument for or against the applicability of that particular element to the client's case. Under different facts the first element, "detained for questioning on or in the immediate premises of a merchant," could give rise to an issue. Assume the questioning had taken place in the restaurant's parking lot. Would that qualify as being "in the immediate premises"? However, given the facts of our case, it does not appear that the first element raises any issues.

The second element, however, "if such person was detained in a reasonable manner," raises a host of issues. Was it reasonable for the waiter to grab Sarah with such force as to break the strap on her purse? Should he have done so in front of other customers? The answers to these and similar questions suggest that there could be at least some argument that the manner was not reasonable.

There is also an issue as to whether the detention was for a reasonable length of time. While the questioning itself took only a few minutes, it took Sarah another 20 minutes to collect the contents of her purse.

The fourth element, "by the merchant or his servant," may seem to raise an issue but does not. While a waiter would probably not appreciate being called a servant, the law sometimes uses such antiquated terms. For example, children are often called infants. Similarly, employers are sometimes called masters.

The fifth and sixth elements also present issues: Did the waiter have "reasonable grounds" to believe Sarah was attempting to leave without paying her bill? Do food and drink served in a restaurant qualify as "goods for sale"?

In developing your arguments on each side of every issue, you should, of course, use any of the methods of statutory interpretation available to you. However, focus first on the language of the statute, the facts of your client's case, and your common-sense reasoning as to which interpretations would best satisfy the legislation's intent. Then you can look to other sources, such as prior court opinions interpreting the statute and legislative history, for assistance.

In the final step you conclude whether or not the restaurant could use the statute to defend itself against Sarah's charge of false imprisonment.

Now, for Sarah's case develop a chart, listing each element and the arguments you could make under each for Sarah and the restaurant. For each issue, reach a conclusion. Finally, decide whether you think the restaurant would have a valid defense to detaining Sarah.