“He made me feel like I was scum. That I had no say-so in the matter, that just made me feel like a little kid on the block, like the bully beating the kid up.…” 

Facts: Karl Cockrell and his parents went to the layaway department at a store owned by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Walmart). Cockrell stayed for about five minutes and decided to leave. As he was going out the front door, Raymond Navarro, a Walmart loss-prevention officer, stopped him and requested that Cockrell follow him to the manager’s office. Once in the office, Navarro told him to pull his pants down. Cockrell put his hands between his shorts and underwear, pulled them out, and shook them. Nothing fell out. Next Navarro told him to take off his shirt. Cockrell raised his shirt, revealing a large bandage that covered a surgical wound on the right side of his abdomen. Cockrell had recently had a liver transplant. Navarro asked him to take off the bandage, despite Cockrell’s explanation that the bandage maintained a sterile environment around his surgical wound. On Navarro’s insistence, Cockrell took down the bandage, revealing the wound. Navarro let Cockrell go. Cockrell sued Walmart to recover damages for false imprisonment. Walmart defended, alleging that the shopkeeper’s privilege protected it from liability. The trial court found in favor of Cockrell and awarded Cockrell $300,000 for his mental anguish. Walmart appealed. 

Issue: Does the shopkeeper’s privilege protect Walmart from liability under the circumstances of the case? 

Language of the -Court: Navarro claimed he had reasons to suspect Cockrell of shoplifting. He said that Cockrell was acting suspiciously, because he saw him in the women’s department standing very close to a rack of clothes and looking around. We conclude that a rational jury could have found that Navarro did not “reasonably believe” a theft had occurred and therefore lacked authority to detain Cockrell. Navarro’s search was unreasonable in scope, because he had no probable cause to believe that Cockrell had hidden any merchandise under the bandage. Removal of the bandage compromised the sterile environment surrounding the wound. 

Decision: The court of appeals upheld the trial court’s finding that Walmart had falsely imprisoned Cockrell and had not proved the shopkeeper’s privilege. The court of appeals upheld the trial court’s judgment that awarded Cockrell $300,000 for mental anguish. 

Ethics Questions: Did Navarro, the Walmart employee, act responsibly in this case? Did Walmart act ethically in denying liability in this case?