McCann v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2000 · Torts

TortsFalse ImprisonmentPunitive Damagesfalse imprisonmentconfinementthreats of forcelawful authoritysubmission

Facts

As the McCanns were leaving Wal-Mart after paying for their purchases, two employees blocked their path and told Debra McCann that her children were barred from the store because they had previously been caught stealing. The employees were mistaken, but they told Debra that they had records, that the police were being called, and that the family had to go with them; they then kept the family near the exit under watch for about an hour. During that time, one employee refused to look at Debra's identification, accused Jonathan directly of prior theft, and told him he could not go to the bathroom. Eventually a security officer confirmed that Wal-Mart had identified the wrong family, and the McCanns were allowed to leave.

Issue

Whether the evidence was sufficient under Maine law to support a finding of false imprisonment where Wal-Mart employees did not use actual physical force but blocked the family's exit, directed them to stay, invoked the police, and watched over them. A related issue was whether the district court's jury instructions were erroneous for failing to require actual physical restraint or to distinguish confinement from mere moral influence.

Rule

False imprisonment requires that the defendant intend to confine the plaintiff within boundaries fixed by the defendant, that the defendant's acts directly or indirectly result in such confinement, and that the plaintiff is conscious of the confinement or harmed by it. Confinement may be accomplished not only by physical barriers or force but also by threats of force, implicit threats, or a false assertion of legal authority, so long as the plaintiff submits; mere moral suasion or a personal plea to remain is not enough.

🔒

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 home-improvement store in Toledo, Nora Kim paid for her items and headed toward the parking lot. A loss-prevention employee stepped directly in front of the only open exit, told Nora to wait by the customer-service desk until "this gets sorted out," and remained a few feet away watching her for 25 minutes; he never touched her or said she would be arrested.

If Nora sues for false imprisonment under the governing rule, which is the strongest argument that a jury could find confinement?

Explanation. Confinement does not require actual physical force. It may be established by threats of force, including implicit threats, if the plaintiff submits. Here, blocking the only open exit and standing guard could cause a reasonable person to believe she would be physically restrained if she tried to leave. That is enough for a jury to find confinement.