Bonkowski v. Arlan's Department Store

Court of Appeals of Michigan · 1968 · Torts

TortsDefamationShopkeeper liabilityFalse arrestslanderpublicationshoplifting accusationfalse arrest

Facts

After leaving defendant's department store at about 10 p.m. with her husband, plaintiff was called back by a uniformed security guard when she was about 30 feet beyond the door. Near the entrance, the guard made accusatory statements and, with plaintiff's permission, examined her purse to see whether jewelry had been stolen. Plaintiff's husband testified the incident occurred close enough to the door for everybody to hear the guard holler, and the episode lasted four to five minutes. It was then learned that no theft had occurred, and plaintiff and her husband left.

Issue

Whether the evidence supported submission of plaintiff's false arrest claim, whether plaintiff produced sufficient evidence of publication to submit her slander claim, and how the merchant-damages statute limited recovery in a slander action arising from a shoplifting accusation.

Rule

An arrest requires proof of an act indicating an intention to take the person into custody; without such proof, there is no false arrest. In a slander action, publication may be established by accusatory words heard by others or by accusatory gestures or pantomime seen by others, and publication to a spouse is legally sufficient. Under the merchant statute, in a civil action against a merchant or its agent arising from suspicion of shoplifting, a plaintiff may not recover damages for mental anguish or punitive, exemplary, or aggravated damages unless the plaintiff proves that the merchant or agent used unreasonable force, detained the plaintiff an unreasonable time, acted with unreasonable disregard of the plaintiff's rights or sensibilities, or acted with intent to injure.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Toledo, Maya Ortiz left a discount clothing store when a store detective in a blazer called out, "Ma'am, come back for a second." Near the entrance, he asked whether she had taken a scarf and requested to look in her tote bag; Maya agreed, the bag was checked, and she immediately left when nothing was found.

If Maya sues the store for false arrest, which is the strongest argument for the store under the governing rule?

Explanation. False arrest requires proof of an act indicating an intention to take the person into custody. A mere stop, accusation, or voluntary inspection does not by itself establish arrest. The majority emphasized that without proof of intent to take the plaintiff into custody, there is no arrest and therefore no false arrest.