👀
Torts • Defenses to Intentional Torts
TORT#019
Legal Definition
Shopkeepers have a privilege to detain individuals they reasonably believe committed—or are committing—a theft, for a reasonable time, in order to conduct an investigation.
Plain English Explanation
Sometimes it's okay to commit an intentional tort if you have a valid defense. Whenever you see someone commit an intentional tort, you should look to see if they may have a valid defense. Shopkeeper's Privilege is a valid defense.
Though any person can be a victim of theft at any given chance, thieves are more likely to target places with more to steal — and what has more stuff to steal than a shop? Shoplifting creates a unique problem for shopkeepers because it is a constant risk and threat that threatens the shopkeeper's very livelihood. If a shopkeeper were unable to temporary detain people they reasonably believed had stolen from them, it would be difficult to hold criminals accountable for their action.
For these reasons, shopkeepers privilege acts as a defense to intentional torts committed during a shopkeeper's attempt to prevent someone from stealing their goods. It effectively defends against a thief's claim of battery, assault, false imprisonment, or other related torts that may occur in detaining a suspected shoplifter while the shopkeeper figures out whether or not a crime has occurred.
Though any person can be a victim of theft at any given chance, thieves are more likely to target places with more to steal — and what has more stuff to steal than a shop? Shoplifting creates a unique problem for shopkeepers because it is a constant risk and threat that threatens the shopkeeper's very livelihood. If a shopkeeper were unable to temporary detain people they reasonably believed had stolen from them, it would be difficult to hold criminals accountable for their action.
For these reasons, shopkeepers privilege acts as a defense to intentional torts committed during a shopkeeper's attempt to prevent someone from stealing their goods. It effectively defends against a thief's claim of battery, assault, false imprisonment, or other related torts that may occur in detaining a suspected shoplifter while the shopkeeper figures out whether or not a crime has occurred.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob walks into a store, grabs a candy bar off the shelf, and sticks it into his pocket in front of a security guard. As he browses through the store, the security guard grabs Bob by the wrist and leads him into the back room. Bob waits for 30 minutes in a secured room while the security guard checks footage. Bob sues from battery and false imprisonment. Result: The security guard, acting as an agent of the shopkeeper, had the right to investigate whether or not Bob had stolen anything. Forcing him into a secured room and making him wait a reasonable amount of time is appropriate.
Hypo 2: Sam owns a comic book store. One day, Bob comes in. Sam recognizes Bob as someone who has previously stolen comic books. As Bob is walking through the store, he is seen glancing around at security cameras. Suddenly, Sam sees Bob shove his hand awkwardly in his pocket and head towards the exit at a fast pace. Sam runs towards Bob, grabs him, and demand he empty his pockets. Bob pleads for Sam to let him go before finally emptying his pockets, which turn out to be empty. Sam was mistaken. Bob sues for battery and false imprisonment. Result: Sam likely has a defense for grabbing and detaining Bob, and this is one of those fact patterns that will push you to describe why it was reasonable for him to do so (previous offender + acting shady + thought he saw him put something in pocket). But that being said, if Sam is just paranoid and shaking down random customers in his store, then the argument can be that it was not reasonable.
Hypo 2: Sam owns a comic book store. One day, Bob comes in. Sam recognizes Bob as someone who has previously stolen comic books. As Bob is walking through the store, he is seen glancing around at security cameras. Suddenly, Sam sees Bob shove his hand awkwardly in his pocket and head towards the exit at a fast pace. Sam runs towards Bob, grabs him, and demand he empty his pockets. Bob pleads for Sam to let him go before finally emptying his pockets, which turn out to be empty. Sam was mistaken. Bob sues for battery and false imprisonment. Result: Sam likely has a defense for grabbing and detaining Bob, and this is one of those fact patterns that will push you to describe why it was reasonable for him to do so (previous offender + acting shady + thought he saw him put something in pocket). But that being said, if Sam is just paranoid and shaking down random customers in his store, then the argument can be that it was not reasonable.
Related Concepts
In assessing a tort against property, what is a private necessity?
In assessing a tort against property, what is a public necessity?
In assessing a tort against property, what is necessity?
What is consent and its limitations?
When is consent implied?
When is consent implied by law?
When is defense of others proper?
When is defense of property proper?
When is express consent not valid?
When is self-defense proper?
When may an actor recapture a chattel?
