Opinion ID: 2520001
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the false imprisonment theory of liability

Text: ¶ 9 False imprisonment is a common-law wilful tort. [16] The essential elements of the tort are (a) the detention of a person against his (or her) will and (b) the unlawfulness of the detention. [17] At common law a merchant who detained another on a reasonable but mistaken belief that the person had stolen some merchandise would have been subject to a claim for false imprisonment. [18] The legislature modified this ancient rule by its enactment of 22 O.S.2001 §§ 1343 [19] and 1344. [20] The terms of § 1343 protect from civil and criminal liability a merchant who (a) has reasonable grounds or probable cause to believe that a person has wrongfully shoplifted merchandise and (b) detains that person in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable length of time. [21] Section 1344 creates a presumption of probable cause to believe that concealed unpurchased merchandise was shoplifted. ¶ 10 J.C. Penney interposed these statutory provisions as its defenses to Walters' false imprisonment claim. Its certiorari brief primarily challenges COCA's declaration that the § 1344 presumption of probable cause does not avail here because the merchandise in suit was not concealed. According to J.C. Penney, (a) COCA's narrow construction of § 1344 thwarts the legislative intent and (b) the statutory presumption should be invocable when the merchandise is either concealed or in plain sight. J.C. Penney urges there are sufficient undisputed facts in the record to support its claim to the statutory defense.