Grant v. Stop-N-Go Market of Texas

Texas Court of Appeals, Houston [1st Dist.] · Torts

TortsFalse ImprisonmentDefamationShopkeeper's PrivilegeQualified PrivilegeSummary Judgmentfalse imprisonmentdefamation

Facts

Grant was buying beer and chips at a Stop-N-Go when he picked up a one-dollar bill from the counter and briefly stepped toward the door to check on his girlfriend outside. As he was leaving, store manager Calhoun grabbed his arm, loudly accused him of stealing cigarettes, and said there was surveillance video showing it. According to Grant, Calhoun told him not to leave and called the police; Grant said he remained because he was afraid after being grabbed and accused publicly. Police later reviewed the videotape and released Grant after determining the allegations were unfounded, but the tape was not produced in the summary judgment record.

Issue

Whether Stop-N-Go conclusively negated an element of Grant's false imprisonment and defamation claims so as to be entitled to summary judgment. More specifically, the court considered whether fact issues remained on detention and consent, whether the shopkeeper's privilege authorized the detention as a matter of law, and whether either the shopkeeper's privilege or a qualified privilege barred the defamation claim.

Rule

False imprisonment consists of (1) a willful detention, (2) without consent, and (3) without authority of law. A willful detention may be accomplished not only by physical restraint but also by threats or other means that would inspire a just fear of injury to person, reputation, or property. Under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 124.001, a shopkeeper is privileged to detain a person only if the shopkeeper reasonably believes the person has stolen or is attempting to steal, and the detention is for a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner; the privilege is limited to false imprisonment claims arising from investigative detentions and does not apply to defamation. A qualified privilege for defamatory statements exists only when the statement is made in good faith to persons with a corresponding interest or duty and is lost if made with actual malice or outside that protected audience.

🔒

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.

At a convenience store in Dallas, Lena Ortiz paid for a drink and started toward the exit. The manager, Brent Cole, stepped in front of her, gripped her wrist for a moment, loudly said she had stolen batteries, told her not to leave, and immediately called the police while other customers watched. Lena stayed because she feared being chased down and branded a thief if she walked out.

If Lena sues for false imprisonment, which is the strongest argument against summary judgment for the store?

Explanation. False imprisonment requires willful detention, without consent, and without authority of law. The majority explained that willful detention may be accomplished not only by physical restraint but also by threats or other means inspiring a just fear of injury to person, reputation, or property. A brief grab combined with a command not to leave and an actual call to police can create a fact issue on detention and consent.