Martha Smith went to a K-Mart store at about 7:30 p.m. on September 8 to purchase some diapers and several cans of motor oil.  She took her small child along to enable her to purchase the correct size diapers, carrying the child in an infant seat which she had purchased at K-Mart two or three weeks previously.  A large K-Mart price tag was still attached to the infant seat.

Martha purchased the diapers and oil and some children's clothes.  She was in a hurry to leave because it was then 8:00 p.m., her child's feeding time, and she hurried through the checkout lane.  She paid for the diapers, oil, and clothing.  Just after leaving the store, she heard someone ask her to stop.  She turned around and saw a K-Mart security guard, who asked, "Would you please come back into the store?" Martha replied, "What for"? The security guard pulled out a store badge, showed it to her, and said that if she would just come back into the store, he would like to talk to her about it.

When Martha hesitated, the security guard grabbed her by the arm and led her back into the store, stopping just inside the doors.  The guard then told Martha that one of the K-Mart employees had informed him that she saw Martha steal the car seat. Martha denied that she had stolen the seat, and explained that she had purchased the seat previously.  She demanded to see the person who accused her of stealing the seat.  The security guard said that it would take awhile to find the employee.  Martha asked if they could wait in a more private place, but the guard said that they could not. 

After approximately 20 minutes, the employee was found.  The employee stated that she saw plaintiff steal the infant seat by taking it off a table and putting her baby in it.  Martha pointed out to the security guard that the seat had cat hairs, food crumbs, and milk stains on it.  The guard then said, "I'm really sorry, there's been a terrible mistake.  You can go."  Martha looked at the clock as she left.  The time was 8:30 p.m.

Assume that Martha has sued K-Mart for false imprisonment.  Your firm represents K-Mart, and your boss wants to know if the store has a valid defense.  Research revealed the following statute:

Statute 203 § 99. False Imprisonment

A merchant or merchant's adult employee who has probable cause for believing that a person has stolen store merchandise may detain such person in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time.

 If Martha sues K-Mart for false imprisonment, do you think she would win her case, or do you think K-Mart has a valid defense? Why?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Based on the information provided and the relevant statute 203 99 regarding false imprisonment it ap... View the full answer