What was "unreasonable" in the case below?

Facts and Procedural History

The plaintiff (Mr. Coblyn, 70 year old man, frail of build at 5'4") was shopping in the defendant's (Kennedy's Inc. department store) store and tried on a jacket. He removed his ascot while he was trying on the coat and left it, unknowingly, in the jacket pocket. After paying for the jacket he left it for alterations, and upon picking it up from the dept. store tailer he pulled his ascot out and put it back on. Mr. Goss (an employee of Kennedy's Inc.) approached Coblyn after seeing this and demanded that he go see the manager. Goss approached with another man, without notifying Coblyn that he was affiliated with the store and in front of 8-10 bystanders. On the way to the managers office, Coblyn experienced chest pains and afterwards was hospitalized for a heart attack. He is seen to have been detained by Goss partially physically and also in the menacing way which Goss addressed Coblyn (submission to this threat effectively imprisoned Coblyn).

Procedural History:

Plaintiff sued for false imprisonment, trial jury found in favor of the plaintiff for $12,500 in damages. Defendants appealed.

Issue(s)

This is a Tort of False Imprisonment, specifically dealing with the exception clause that protects merchants in suspected shoplifting cases (SS 94B)

The statute states that a store owner or employee can detain a suspected shoplifter: 1) on reasonable grounds of suspicion, 2) in a reasonable manner and 3) for a reasonable amount of time

-was Coblyn detained in such a way by Goss that is protected under the above statute

-did the judge properly instruct the jury on how to interpret this clause (the "prudent and cautious man" wording in the instruction)

Holding and Dissent(s)

NO, the defendant/appellate's actions do not fall under this exception. YES, the judge properly instructed the jury on the exception to the statute.

Reasoning:

Although Goss detained Coblyn for a reasonable amount of time, the manner and grounds for the detainment were NOT reasonable. The age and condition of the plaintiff and his agreeable disposition gave Goss little on the suspicion grounds. From the ex ante perspective, allowing the shop keeper to act on ANY "honest suspicion" would lead to the shop keeper's having more power than the authorities and create frivolous questioning of shoppers. In addition, the manner was overbearing, especially considering the age and disposition of Coblyn. Essentially, Goss is arguing what should be considered "reasonable" standards.

Judgment: exceptions overruled, verdict stands, affirmed.

.