Morgan v. Loyacomo

Supreme Court of Mississippi · Torts

TortsAssault and BatteryVicarious LiabilityDamagesassault and batterystore managermerchant accusationsnatching package

Facts

The appellee bought one article of ladies' underwear at appellants' Grenada store and left after paying for it, while the store manager witnessed the purchase. Because of a trivial circumstance, the manager suspected without substantial grounds that she had taken two garments but paid for only one, and he made no inquiry of either the clerk or the appellee before she left, although such an inquiry would have shown his suspicion was unfounded. About a block away and in the presence of several persons, the manager called to her, said he had to investigate whether she had taken two articles while paying for only one, forcibly seized the package from under her arm, opened it, and examined and exhibited its contents. He then discovered he was mistaken.

Issue

Whether the manager's conduct in publicly stopping the customer and forcibly taking and opening the package constituted assault and battery, whether the store owners were liable for that conduct, and whether the damages awarded were excessive.

Rule

To constitute an assault and battery, it is not necessary to touch the plaintiff's body or clothing; knocking or snatching anything from the plaintiff's hand, or touching anything connected with the plaintiff's person, when done in a rude or insolent manner, is sufficient. An employer is accountable for a manager's acts when those acts are so closely connected in scope, time, and area with the manager's evident managerial duties that they may be treated as part of the transaction. A damages award in this context will not be disturbed unless the court can say with confidence that it is excessive.

🔒

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 clothing shop in Tulsa, manager Evan Brooks watched Nina Patel pay for a scarf. Without first asking the cashier about the sale, he ran after Nina onto the sidewalk, angrily yanked the shopping sack from under her elbow, and dumped its contents onto a bench while several pedestrians watched.

If Nina sues for battery, which is the strongest argument under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority rule is that assault and battery does not require touching the plaintiff's body or clothing. Knocking or snatching something from the plaintiff's hand, or touching something connected with the plaintiff's person, in a rude or insolent manner is enough. Here, the bag was under Nina's elbow and was forcibly seized in public. (Derived from Morgan v. Loyacomo (n.d.).)