Wesson v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.
38 So. 3d 746 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2009
Facts
On July 13, 2004, Kim Gallegly Wesson and her four children visited a Wal-Mart store to have her car tires serviced. While waiting, Wesson dropped off two prescriptions at the pharmacy and shopped for groceries. Wal-Mart's loss prevention associate, Kyle Jack, was aware Wesson was on a "watch list" for previous unpaid prescriptions and observed her. Wesson told the pharmacy associate she would pay for the prescriptions at the main checkout, but at the TLE department checkout, she paid for her groceries and car service without presenting the prescriptions. Jack, having observed Wesson leave the store with the unpaid prescriptions, confronted her in the parking lot, where she admitted not paying. Jack then led Wesson and her children back into the store, locked her in a loss-prevention office, accused her of stealing, and called the police, who subsequently arrested her.
Procedural history
Wesson sued Wal-Mart and Jack for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart and Jack, which Wesson opposed. After her post-judgment motion was denied, Wesson appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court, which transferred the appeal to this court.
Issue
Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment to Wal-Mart and its employee on Wesson's claims of malicious prosecution and false imprisonment, specifically regarding whether there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the lack of probable cause?
Holding
The court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart and Jack on both the malicious-prosecution and false-imprisonment claims. It concluded that Wesson failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding the lack of probable cause for either claim.
Rule
To establish a claim of malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must prove a judicial proceeding was initiated by the defendant without probable cause, with malicious intent, terminated in the plaintiff's favor, and resulted in damages. Probable cause is defined as a reasonable ground for suspicion, supported by circumstances strong enough to warrant belief that the accused is guilty. A dismissal of criminal proceedings "pursuant to agreement" where the plaintiff pays court costs, or "buys her peace," does not constitute a termination in the plaintiff's favor and bars using the dismissal as prima facie evidence of a lack of probable cause. For false imprisonment, a merchant or employee is immune from liability if they had probable cause to believe the person detained was attempting to shoplift, as per Ala. Code 1975, § 15-10-14(a) and (c).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.