Procedural Posture

Defendant store challenged a decision of the trial court (Ohio), which entered judgment for plaintiff customer in her false imprisonment action. The trial court also denied the store's motions for a directed verdict and for judgment.

Overview

The customer had been a regular patron of the store for several years. She was thoroughly familiar with the premises and the system of operation of the store. She knew the location of the entrance and exit. There was a notice posted that all bags and packages would be checked, and the customer was aware of the notice and the practice. The customer entered the store with a shopping bag from a different store. Upon attempting to exit without making a purchase, the store's employee insisted that the bag had to be searched. After submitting to the search, the customer left. The customer stated that no one touched her. She also said there were other exits and neither she nor any other witness testified that the employee ordered her to stay or refused to allow her to leave. On appeal, the store argued that the trial court erred in overruling its motions for a directed verdict and for judgment. The court agreed, reversed the judgment, and entered final judgment for the store. In doing so, the court held that the submission to the mere verbal direction of the store's employee, unaccompanied by force or by threats of any character, could not have constituted a false imprisonment.

Outcome

The judgment for the customer was reversed, and final judgment was entered for the store.

CAN YOU PLEASE HELP ME ANSWER THESE:

• Facts
• Issue(s)
• Holding (or ruling of the Court)
• Reasoning (Court's reason for ruling)
• Your Impression of the Case