Case Title: HARDY v LABELLE S DISTR CO

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1983-03-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 82-110 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF T I I E STATE OF MONTANA 1983 DEBRA JO HARDY, Plaintiff and Appellant, LaBELLEIS DISTRIEUTING CO., STEVEN E. NEWSOM, Loss Prevention Manager; DAVID KOTKE, Showroom Manager, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone, The Honorable Charles Luedke, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Joseph P. Hennessey, Billings, Montana For Respondents: James L. Jones, Billings, Montana Submitted on Briefs: January 27, 1953 Decided: March 31, 1983 8 &jLL A + Q / c $ l w ' Clerk M r . J u s t i c e L . C. Gulbrandson d e l i v e r e d the Opinion of the Court. P l a i n t i f f , Debra J o Hardy brought t h i s a c t i o n a g a i n s t defen- d a n t s f o r f a l s e imprisonment. The D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Yellowstone County, issued judgment a E t e r a j u r y v e r d i c t i n f a v o r of d e f e n d a n t s and p l a i n t i f f a p p e a l s . Defendant, LaBelle I s D i s t r i b u t i n g Company ( LaBelle I s ) , hired Hardy a s a temporary employee on December 1, 1978. She was a s s i g n e d d u t y a s a s a l e s c l e r k i n t h e jewelry department. On December 9 , 1978, a n o t h e r employee f o r LaBelle I s , J a c k i e Renner, thought s h e saw Hardy s t e a l one of t h e watches t h a t J A a B e l l e l s had i n s t o c k . J a c k i e Renner r e p o r t e d h e r b e l i e f t o LaBelle s showroom manager t h a t evening. On t h e morning of December 10, Hardy was approached by the a s s i s t a n t manager of L a B e l l e l s jewelry department and t o l d t h a t a l l new employees were given a t o u r of t h e s t o r e . He showed h e r i n t o t h e showroom manager's o f f i c e and then l e f t , c l o s i n g the door behind him. There is c o n f l i c t i n g testimony concerning who was p r e s e n t i n t h e showroom manager I s o f f i c e when Hardy a r r i v e d . Hardy tes t i £ i e d t h a t David Kotke , the showroom manager, Steve N e w s o m , t h e s t o r e ' s l o s s p r e v e n t i o n manager, and a uniformed policeman were p r e s e n t . Newsom and one of the policemen i n t h e room t e s t i f i e d t h a t a n o t h e r policeman, i n s t e a d of Kotke , was p r e s e n t . Hardy was t o l d t h a t she had been accused of s t e a l i n g a watch. Hardy denied t a k i n g t h e watch and agreed t o t a k e a l i e d e t e c t o r t e s t . According t o c o n f l i c t i n g testimony, the meeting l a s t e d approximately from twenty to f o r t y - f i v e minutes. Hardy took t h e l i e d e t e c t o r test which supported h e r s t a t e - ment t h a t she had n o t taken t h e watch. The showroom manager apo- l o g i z e d t o Hardy t h e next morning and t o l d h e r t h a t she was s t i l l welcome to work a t L a B e l l e l s . The employee who r e p o r t e d seeing Hardy t a k e t h e watch a l s o apologized. The two employees then argued b r i e f l y , and Hardy l e f t the s t o r e . Hardy b r o u g h t t h i s a c t i o n c l a i m i n g t h a t d e f e n d a n t s had wrong- f u l l y d e t a i n e d h e r a g a i n s t h e r w i l l when s h e was q u e s t i o n e d a b o u t t h e watch. On a p p e a l Hardy r a i s e s b a s i c a l l y t w o i s s u e s 1. Whether t h e e v i d e n c e is s u f f i c i e n t to s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t and judgment; and 2. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n t h e i s s u a n c e of its i n s t r u c t i o n s . The t w o key e l e m e n t s of f a l s e imprisonment are t h e r e s t r a i n t o f an i n d i v i d u a l a g a i n s t h i s w i l l and t h e u n l a w f u l n e s s of such r e s t r a i n t . 32 Am. J u r . 2d, F a l s e I m p r i s o n m e n t , §5. The i n d i v i d u a l may be r e s t r a i n e d by acts or m e r e l y by words which he f e a r s t o d i s r e g a r d . P a n i s k o v. D r e i b e l b i s ( 1 9 4 2 ) , 1 1 3 Elont. 310, 124 P.2d 997; Kroeger v. Passmore ( 1 9 0 8 ) , 36 Mont. 504, 9 3 P. 805. Here,. t h e r e is ample e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t t h e j u r y ' s f i n d i n g t h a t Hardy was n o t u n l a w f u l l y r e s t r a i n e d a g a i n s t h e r w i l l . While Hardy s t a t e d t h a t s h e f e l t compelled to remain i n t h e showroom m a n a g e r ' s o f f ice, s h e also a d m i t t e d t h a t s h e wanted to s t a y and c l a r i f y t h e s i t u a t i o n . She d i d n o t a s k to l e a v e . She was not t o l d s h e c o u l d n o t l e a v e . N o t h r e a t of f o r c e or o t h e r w i s e was made to compel h e r to s t a y . Although s h e followed t h e a s s i s t a n t manager i n t o t h e o f f ice under p r e t e n s e of a t o u r , s h e t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l t h a t s h e would have f o l l o w e d him v o l u n t a r i l y i f s h e had known t h e t r u e p u r p o s e of t h e meeting and t h a t two policemen were i n t h e room. Under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e j u r y c o u l d e a s i l y f i n d t h a t Hardy was n o t d e t a i n e d a g a i n s t h e r w i l l . S e e also, Meinecke v . Skaggs ( 1 9 4 9 ) , 123 Mont. 308, 213 P.2d 237, and R o b e r t s v. Coleman ( 1 9 6 1 ) , 228 O r . 286, 365 P.2d 79. Hardy a l s o claims t h e District C o u r t e r r e d b y i s s u i n g c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s 1 0 , 12, 1 3 , and 1 4 , and by r e f u s i n g h e r pro- posed i n s t r u c t i o n s 7 , 11, 1 7 , 1 9 , and 30. Hardy a r g u e s t h a t t h e c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s f a i l e d t o comply w i t h t h e f a c t s and law, which were more a c c u r a t e l y r e p r e s e n t e d i n h e r proposed i n s t r u c - t i o n s . Where j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s , taken as a whole, state t h e l a w a p p l i c a b l e to t h e c a s e , a p a r t y cannot claim r e v e r s i b l e error as t o t h e g i v i n g o f c e r t a i n i n s t r u c t i o n s . Goodnough v. S t a t e (1982) , Mont . , 647 P.2d 364, 39 St.Rep. 1170. Here, t h e c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s a d e q u a t e l y s t a t e d t h e law on f a l s e imprisonment. A p p e l l a n t ' s proposed i n s t r u c t i o n s 7 , 11, 1 7 , 1 9 , and 30 e i t h e r r e i t e r a t e d t h e c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s o r were i n a p p r o p r i a t e , and t h e r e f ore were p r o p e r l y r e f used by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . I n s t r u c t i o n 10 g i v e n by t h e D i s t r i c t Court provided t h a t t h e r e was no f a l s e imprisonment i f t h e p l a i n t i f f v o l u n t a r i l y complied w i t h t h e r e q u e s t to remain i n t h e showroom manager's o f f i c e . T h i s is one of t h e key e l e m e n t s of f a l s e imprisonment and was p r o p e r l y g i v e n . 32 Arn.Jur.2df F a l s e Imprisonment, § l o ; G r i f f i n v. C l a r k ( 1 9 3 5 ) , 55 Idaho 364, 42 P.2d 297. C o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n 12 provided t h a t an employer upon rea- s o n a b l e c a u s e may r e q u e s t a p o l i c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n . I n s t r u c t i o n 1 3 provided t h a t a s t o r e employee may t e m p o r a r i l y d e t a i n a n o t h e r p e r s o n to i n v e s t i g a t e a t h e f t o n l y upon probable c a u s e . These i n s t r u c t i o n s p a r a p h r a s e t h e s t a n d a r d r u l e r e q u i r i n g p r o b a b l e c a u s e b e f o r e a person may be d e t a i n e d . Duran v. B u t t r e y Food, I n c . ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont . , 616 P.2d 327, 38 St.Rep. 1545. A p p e l l a n t f a i l e d t o o b j e c t t o i n s t r u c t i o n 14, and f i n d i n g no p l a i n error, w e need n o t review t h e i n s t r u c t i o n . S t a t e Highway Commission v. Beldon ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 166 Mont. 246, 531 P.2d 1324. F i n d i n g s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e judgment and no error i n t h e i s s u a n c e of t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s judgment is a£ f irmed . W e Concur: %ce_ & @ & , Chief J u s t i c e