REL:
12/4/09
Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance
s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s ,
Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s ,
300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1
((334)
2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made
b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r .
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010
2080959
Kim
G a l l e g l y Wesson
v.
Wal-Mart S t o r e s E a s t ,
L.P., and K y l e Jack
Appeal from S t . C l a i r C i r c u i t
(CV-05-108)
THOMAS,
Court
Judge.
On J u l y 1 3 , 2 0 0 4 , a t a b o u t 9:30 a.m., K i m G a l l e g l y W e s s o n
and
h e r f o u r c h i l d r e n went t o t h e P e l l
department
store,
operated
C i t y Wal-Mart
by Wal-Mart
( " W a l - M a r t " ) , t o have t h e t i r e s
Stores
discount
East, L.P.
on Wesson's a u t o m o b i l e
rotated
2080959
and b a l a n c e d .
express
Wesson l e f t h e r a u t o m o b i l e
department
Wesson h a d assumed t h a t
30 m i n u t e s ,
so she and h e r c h i l d r e n w a l k e d
awaiting
automobile.
minutes,
and
requesting
breakfast,
located
breakfast,
service
completion
the automobile
Wesson
had been
children
inside
checked
around
the
t h e Wal-Mart
service
was n o t r e a d y
to
dropped
o f one
then
to the electronics
Wesson p u r c h a s e d
telephone.
waiting,
then
t o shop
decided
automobile
Wesson
and h e r
of the store,
o f h e r two p r e s c r i p t i o n s f o r
Wesson
f o rher prepaid
dropped
counter
f o rgroceries
Florida.
2
and t h e c h i l d r e n
of the store,
on t h e s t a t u s
Wesson
a t t h e pharmacy
fast-food
see i f h e r
department
minutes
prescription
hungry
finishing
department
check
30
After
i t had n o t .
counter.
additional
When a t h i r d
further
to
her
i n about
McDonald's
store.
t o t h e pharmacy
a t t h e pharmacy
went
the
again
refilling
yielded
of
the
completed;
proceeded
Wilson
to
t o be
t h e s e r v i c e w o u l d t a k e 20¬
W e s s o n d e c i d e d t o t a k e h e r c h i l d r e n , who w e r e
restaurant
where
the
When
and lube
("TLE d e p a r t m e n t " ) f o r t h e s e r v i c e
performed.
store
at the t i r e
where
cellular
of her automobile
o f f her
forrefilling.
f o r the family's
second
Wesson
trip
to
2080959
Once
Wesson
returned
to
had
associate,
completed
the
pharmacy
By
t h i s time,
prescriptions.
Vincent,
had
notified
Kyle
her
grocery
department
shopping,
retrieve
to
she
her
the pharmacy a s s o c i a t e ,
Jack,
t h a t W e s s o n w o u l d be
the
in-store loss
p i c k i n g up
Jennifer
prevention
prescriptions
Because Wal-Mart's p o l i c y allows
from
the
pharmacy.
pay
f o r most p r e s c r i p t i o n s a t any
check-out counter,
the
store
has
a computer
track
and
place
system
that
keeps
of
the
customers
time
of the payment to e n s u r e t h a t a l l p r e s c r i p t i o n s p i c k e d
the
pharmacy
name h a d
department
appeared
prescriptions
least
two
"watch
Once
retrieve
came
her
list
up
of
from
persons
the
paid
who
had
pharmacy
resulting in
for.
her
said that
arrived
loudspeaker
completed.
w o u l d pay
of
not
paid
for
on
placement
at
on
a
sorts.
pharmacy
groceries
from
Wesson's
department
the
the
Wesson b o t h
ultimately
p r e s c r i p t i o n s , Wesson
her
over
she
of
a
occasions,
Wesson
s e r v i c e was
that
picked
other
list"
on
are
up
to
and
her
to
inform
her
that
department
an
her
p r e s c r i p t i o n s when s h e
for
her
car
service.
p r e s c r i p t i o n s ; Wesson
3
to
announcement
automobile
Wesson i n f o r m e d the pharmacy
f o r her
paid
at
associate
checked
Vincent
owed money
on
out
gave
both
2080959
prescriptions.
department
Wesson
and
returned
followed
by J a c k .
the
department,
TLE
items
on
the
Once
and
her c h i l d r e n
the
TLE
she r e a c h e d
Wesson
and
the
the check-out
proceeded
to
left
department;
check
to place
out.
f o r her groceries
left
Swain,
groceries
children
pharmacy
they
were
counter
her
Wesson
grocery
d i d not,
and c a r s e r v i c e ,
Wesson
the store.
the
associate
who
checked
a t t h e TLE d e p a r t m e n t , t e s t i f i e d
out
that
Wesson's
she had a s k e d
Wesson w h e t h e r she w a n t e d t o pay f o r h e r p r e s c r i p t i o n s .
said
that
Wesson
prescriptions
at
h e r p r e s c r i p t i o n s on t h e c o u n t e r t o c h e c k o u t .
she had p a i d
Tara
her
to
Once
counter
however, p l a c e
and
indicated
already.
that
she
Jack t e s t i f i e d
had
that
paid
Swain
for
he h a d s e e n
the
Swain
motion toward the c h i l d - s e a t p o r t i o n of the c a r t , i n which the
prescriptions,
Wesson's
dolls
s a t , as
or
grocery
toys
items.
exact question
purse,
she
and
completed
A l t h o u g h he s a i d t h a t
o r Wesson's f i r s t
some
of
checking
the
children's
out
Wesson's
he d i d n o t h e a r
Swain's
answer t o t h a t q u e s t i o n ,
Jack
s a i d t h a t he m o v e d c l o s e r t o W e s s o n a n d h e a r d h e r r e f e r t o t h e
items
i n the
personal
items.
child-seat
portion
Jack said that
4
of
the
cart
as
he saw W e s s o n l e a v e
being
her
the store
2080959
without
paying
f o r the
prescriptions,
outside
to apprehend h e r .
Once she r e a c h e d t h e p a r k i n g
began
to place
he
followed
her
l o t , Wesson and h e r c h i l d r e n
Jack
and
a n o t h e r a s s o c i a t e , Nathan N i c h o l s , a p p r o a c h e d Wesson w h i l e
she
unloaded
her purchases
so
her g r o c e r i e s .
according
into
Jack
addressed
t o W e s s o n , s a i d : " E x c u s e me,
paid
f o r those p r e s c r i p t i o n s . "
that
she had n o t , i n f a c t ,
According
t o Wesson,
come b a c k i n s i d e t o f i l l
allowed
the store,
according
Wesson s a i d t h a t
paid
Jack
office
told
her that
you
she a d m i t t e d
she
o u t some f o r m s a n d t h a t
said
that
l e d Wesson
i n the
t o Wesson,
Jack
Jack
Wesson a d m i t t e d
J a c k gave h e r t o s i g n
logo
think
f o r the p r e s c r i p t i o n s .
Jack
needed
to
she w o u l d be
asked
appeared
that
other
on t h e m .
associate.
and h e r c h i l d r e n
front
locked
of
the
f o r her
S o c i a l S e c u r i t y number and t h a t
sign.
but I don't
t o t h e s t o r e w i t h J a c k and t h e o t h e r
loss-prevention
Wesson
W e s s o n b y name a n d ,
t o pay f o r t h e p r e s c r i p t i o n s . Wesson and h e r c h i l d r e n
returned
inside
the automobile.
the
door
the
to the
where,
office.
license
and
he g a v e h e r s e v e r a l p a p e r s t o
than
5
to
driver's
she d i d n o t r e a d
Wesson
store,
Once
to notice
said
that,
the papers
that
that
the Wal-Mart
at that
time,
she
2080959
still
believed
that
she
was
simply
according
to
going
Wesson,
to have
t o pay
for
secured
her
her p r e s c r i p t i o n s .
However,
signature
on
the
forms,
he
s h e w o u l d be
trespassing
store.
said
She
store
" a l l the
that
she
her
that
tried
she
be
that
matter
by
testified
loss
the
items
guilty
loss
her
j a i l .
and
told
her
the
of her
said
police.
telling
Wesson
that
into custody
the
her
Wesson
further
i t d i d not matter
leaving
Wal-Mart.
when t h e y
Jack secured a warrant
degree against
municipal
Wesson.
court.
said
she j u s t w a n t e d t o s e t t l e
of t h e f t under the law but
to
Jack
had
t o l d her that
that
that
she
prescriptions.
him
the
children,
Pell
him
that his job
without
Three
to
paying
City
for
police
o f f i c e r s responded to Jack's e a r l i e r telephone c a l l ; they
Wesson
that
s t e a l i n g from
Wesson
Jack,
that
of
in front
notified
with
p r e v e n t i o n and
a
to
her
t h a t J a c k had
was
her,
and
for
accused
told
had
to pay
paying
w h e t h e r s h e was
was
Jack
to reason
simply forgotten
raised his voice
going
he
Jack
i f s h e e v e r came b a c k i n t o a W a l - M a r t
t i m e " and
would
informed
that
once
took
arrived.
f o r t h e f t of p r o p e r t y i n the
third
W a l - M a r t t h e n p r o s e c u t e d Wesson i n the
After a t r i a l ,
6
t h e a c t i o n was
"dismissed
by
2080959
a g r e e m e n t , " a c c o r d i n g t o a n o t a t i o n on t h e c a s e - a c t i o n - s u m m a r y
sheet
also
of the municipal-court
indicates
Wesson
that
sued
criminal
Wesson p a i d
Wal-Mart
court
and
m a l i c i o u s p r o s e c u t i o n and f a l s e
events
of
July
13,
prosecution.
which
opposed.
Wesson
summary
judgment,
deposition,
and
Jack's
and
deposition,
criminal
prosecution
sheet
the municipal-court
of
asserting
the
claims
from the
resulting
criminal
judgment,
to
their
Jack
and t h e
criminal
motion
submitted
the t r i a l
o f Wesson,
for a
Wesson's
transcript
of the
case-action-summary
action.
Wal-Mart
J a c k a r g u e d i n t h e i r summary-judgment m o t i o n t h a t Wesson
not
of
f o r a summary
exhibits
Wal-Mart
document
costs.
Jack,
a n d J a c k moved
As
That
imprisonment a r i s i n g
2004,
Wal-Mart
case.
and
could
e s t a b l i s h the elements of a m a l i c i o u s - p r o s e c u t i o n c l a i m or
a false-imprisonmentclaim.
judgment
in
favor
of
The t r i a l
Wal-Mart
c o u r t e n t e r e d a summary
and
Jack.
After
her
p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n was d e n i e d , W e s s o n a p p e a l e d t o t h e A l a b a m a
Supreme
pursuant
On
favor
Court,
which
t o A l a . Code
appeal,
of Wal-Mart
transferred
the appeal
to this
court,
1975, § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) .
Wesson
challenges
and J a c k b e c a u s e ,
7
the
summary
judgment
she s a y s , g e n u i n e
in
issues
2080959
of
material
fact
preclude
She
specifically
her
the
malicious-prosecution
claim.
We
We
as
summary
fact
fact
Rule
1036,
1038
prima
2d
at
for
be
a
her
judgment.
of
false-imprisonment
shifts
trial
court.
when
moving
of
no
see
to
such weight
the
Assurance
genuine
Lee
v.
to
A
the
motion
genuine
party
issue
a
same
for
issue
is entitled
of
as
to
judgment
C i t y of
C i v . P.
A
facie
material
a matter
Gadsden,
the
nonmovant
to
rebut
592
the
So.
omitted).
evidence
q u a l i t y that
Florida,
8
547
So.
592
fair-minded
So.
2d
West v.
870,
is
persons
reasonably i n f e r
proved."
2d
movant's
Lee,
and
of
"the
'substantial evidence.'"
"[S]ubstantial
of
a
any
as
a
to
I f the movant meets t h i s b u r d e n ,
f a c t s o u g h t t o be
Co.
no
apply
R u l e 5 6 ( c ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R.
[ i t ] is entitled
(footnote
of
the
law.
is
( A l a . 1992).
1038
the
n o v o ; we
i n the e x e r c i s e o f i m p a r t i a l judgment can
Life
summary
s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t m u s t make a p r i m a
f a c i e s h o w i n g by
existence
a
e s t a b l i s h the elements
and
granted
and
56(c)(3);
then
evidence
claim
in
to
there
that
law."
is
exists
"that
and
burden
applied
a matter of
moving
showing
can
s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t de
was
j u d g m e n t as
party
a
judgment
material
she
of
disagree.
review
standard
argues that
entry
the
Founders
871
(Ala.
2080959
1989);
see A l a . Code 1975,
reviewing
all
the
a
summary
evidence
§ 12-21-12(d).
judgment,
in a
light
the
Furthermore,
appellate
most
favorable
court
when
must
to the
view
nonmovant
and must e n t e r t a i n a l l r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s from the e v i d e n c e
that
a j u r y w o u l d be
& Cas.
Co.
v . DPF
2000);
and
Fuqua v.
(Ala.
entitled
t o draw.
A r c h i t e c t s , P.C.,
Ingersoll-Rand
See
792
Nationwide
2d 369,
So.
Co.,
Prop.
(Ala.
591
So.
372
2d
486,
487
1991).
It i s well settled that a malicious-prosecution action i s
d i s f a v o r e d i n the law.
1284
( A l a . 1988);
1393
( A l a . C i v . App.
for
this
redress
from
Phillips
disfavor
or
fear
stems
to enforce
that
an
for civil
order
plaintiff
must
from
rights
an
through
damages.
Eidson,
prove
claim
(1)
2d
1283,
So.
2d
1390,
of
that
the
legal
will
527
So.
malicious
a
p r o c e e d i n g was
probable cause,
initiated
judicial
by
the
to
seek
process
free
result
one's
In
prosecution,
a
proceeding
(2) t h a t
defendant
(3) t h a t t h e j u d i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g was
9
in
2d a t 1284.
i n i t i a t e d by the d e f e n d a n t a g a i n s t the p l a i n t i f f ,
judicial
the b a s i s
individual's right
judgment
a
So.
As e x p l a i n e d i n E i d s o n ,
adverse
establish
527
682
v. K - M a r t C o r p . ,
1996).
liability
to
E i d s o n v. O l i n C o r p . ,
was
the
without
initiated
2080959
by
the
defendant with malicious
proceeding
the
terminated
plaintiff
initiation
at
i n the
suffered
of
the
intent,
a
that
the
judicial
favor,
plaintiff's
damage a s
judicial
(4)
and
(5)
result
proceeding.
of
the
defendant's
Phillips,
682
So.
2d
1393.
In
argued
their
that
proceeding
probable
summary-judgment
Wesson
could
instituted
cause,
that
not
motion,
establish
against
the
Wal-Mart
her
judicial
that
was
proceeding
was
her
favor.
summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r
and
J a c k need only
be
g r o u n d e d on
a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l
necessary to e s t a b l i s h her
W h i t l o w v.
will
Bruno's,
address
567
only
Wesson's c l a i m .
failed
to
Jack's
motion
prosecution
adduce
2d
of
one
1237-38
to
of the
we
facts
summary
claim.
10
conclude
create
elements
prosecution,
(Ala. 1990),
that
to
overcome
judgment
on
the
in
Wal-Mart
element
the evidence submitted i n support
motion,
a
1235,
initiated
failure
c l a i m of m a l i c i o u s
sufficient
for
t o any
without
terminated
lack-of-probable-cause
B a s e d on
summary-judgment
f a c t as
So.
the
Wesson's
Jack
judicial
initiated
j u d i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g was
Because the
and
the
m a l i c i o u s l y , or t h a t the
the
that
see
we
of
of
Wesson
has
Wal-Mart
and
malicious-
2080959
" P r o b a b l e c a u s e i s d e f i n e d as ' " [ a ] r e a s o n a b l e
ground
for suspicion,
s u p p o r t e d by
circumstances
sufficiently
strong i n themselves
to warrant
a
c a u t i o u s man i n t h e b e l i e f t h a t t h e p e r s o n
accused
i s g u i l t y of the offense charged."'
P a r i s i a n Co. v .
W i l l i a m s , 203 A l a . 3 7 8 , 3 8 3 , 83 S o . 1 2 2 , 127
(1919).
'The
question
is
not
whether
the
[malicious
prosecution] plaintiff
was
guilty
of
the
thing
charged,
but whether the [ m a l i c i o u s p r o s e c u t i o n ]
d e f e n d a n t a c t e d i n g o o d f a i t h on t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f
t h i n g s . ' ( E m p h a s i s s u p p l i e d . ) B i r w o o d P a p e r Co. v .
D a m s k y , 285 A l a . 1 2 7 , 1 3 4 - 1 3 5 , 229 S o . 2 d 5 1 4 ,
521
(1969)."
Eidson,
had
527
probable
"court
facts
was
So.
cause
must w e i g h
as
they
instituted.
cause
2d a t 1285.
are
to
Id.
in
probable
cause
is
(quoting
Hanson v.
The
Eidson
determine
institute
a
[the defendant's]
appeared
not
To
at
a
judicial
time"
the
" ' I f the
facts
on
question
Couch,
360
whether
of
law
So.
2d
defendant
proceeding,
actions in light
the
dispute,
whether a
judicial
for
942,
facts
probable
amount
to
the
courts.'" Id.
945
(Ala. 1978)).
court further explained:
"The t e s t t h a t [ a n a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ] m u s t a p p l y
when r e v i e w i n g t h e l a c k - o f - p r o b a b l e - c a u s e e l e m e n t i n
a
malicious prosecution
case
i n which
summary
judgment has
been granted to a defendant
i s as
f o l l o w s : C a n one o r m o r e u n d i s p u t e d f a c t s b e
found
i n the r e c o r d below e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t the defendant
a c t e d i n g o o d f a i t h on t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f t h i n g s a s
t h e y e x i s t e d w h e n s u i t was f i l e d , b a s e d u p o n d i r e c t
evidence,
or
upon
circumstantial
evidence
and
i n f e r e n c e s t h a t c a n r e a s o n a b l y be d r a w n t h e r e f r o m ?
11
the
proceeding
the i s s u e of
such
of
a
2080959
If
so, then
summary
judgment i n favor
of the
d e f e n d a n t on p l a i n t i f f ' s m a l i c i o u s p r o s e c u t i o n c o u n t
w o u l d be a p p r o p r i a t e . "
Id.
a t 1285-86
(emphasis
added).
Wesson a d m i t t e d t h a t
she l e f t t h e Wal-Mart s t o r e
paying f o rher prescriptions.
so p u r p o s e f u l l y ,
reasonably
obtain
all,
that
Wesson
her prescriptions without
Jack
store
A l t h o u g h she d e n i e d h a v i n g done
Jack had i n f o r m a t i o n
concluded
had
knowledge
without paying
occasions.
without
that
f r o m w h i c h he c o u l d h a v e
had,
paying
Wesson
indeed,
intended
f o r them.
First
had a l l e g e d l y
left
f o r p r e s c r i p t i o n s on a t l e a s t two
When n o t i f i e d
that
s h e was i n t h e s t o r e
be p i c k i n g up h e r p r e s c r i p t i o n s , J a c k w a i t e d
with
had
prescriptions
to
the
TLE
groceries
upon w h i c h
department
while
department
Wesson
where
Swain motion
checking
and
prescriptions.
that
out
he
observed
paid
for
Jack
her
pay
the
Wesson
f o r her
Jack t e s t i f i e d
that
toward the p r e s c r i p t i o n s i n the
Wesson's
Wesson
Because
not
other
verified
s h e owed money, a n d f o l l o w e d
but not f o r her p r e s c r i p t i o n s .
he h a d o b s e r v e d
cart
that
the
i n the pharmacy
the transaction,
cashier
of
and would
d e p a r t m e n t t o o b s e r v e Wesson d u r i n g
the
to
had
had
12
groceries
still
not
observed
in
paid
Wesson
the
for
TLE
those
when
she
2080959
twice
did
h a d an o p p o r t u n i t y
not, Jack
intended
not t o pay
information
detain
testified
he
and
t o pay f o r the p r e s c r i p t i o n s and y e t
t h a t he f e l t
f o r those
prescriptions.
had a t the time,
suspect
Wesson
c o n f i d e n t t h a t Wesson h a d
Jack
of
Based
had probable
committing
on t h e
cause
theft
of
to
the
prescriptions.
Wesson
court
argues
that
c r i m i n a l proceeding
t h a t Wal-Mart and Jack
theft.
972
She r e l i e s
termination
i n her favor
lacked probable
the
creates
municipal-
an
inference
cause t o accuse h e r o f
I n c . , 429 So. 2 d 969,
(Ala. 1983), which i n d i c a t e s t h a t a
malicious-prosecution
probable
" c a n make
cause
instituted
against
was
dismissed
a
prima
showing
by
out
that
h e r by
Thus, Wesson a r g u e s ,
the fact
creates
a fact
Wal-Mart
point
more
about
the use
the
that
the proceedings
and Jack
facie
case
a
question
were n o l
regarding
i n the f i r s t
"nolle
that
prosequi"
Chatman c o u r t
stated that a prima
13
facie
of
proceedings
prossed."
against
probable
place.
Chatman
or order
d i s m i s s a l to prove a claim of malicious prosecution.
the
lack
the c r i m i n a l case
o u t , however,
of a
of
criminal
[the defendant]
cause t o i n i t i a t e
much
of
on Chatman v . P i z i t z ,
plaintiff
her
the
says
of
In fact,
case supported
by
2080959
a
"nolle
proof
the
prosequi"
that
the
parties.
rely
on
or
order
principle
429
plaintiff,
thereafter
assert
in
his
makes c l e a r t h a t
defendant
this
to
a
that
judgment
disposition"
claim,
court
probable
cause.
record
in this
peace,
may
not
of
matter
the
law.
a
the
a
Although
regarding
the
malicious-prosecution
same " s t a n d a r d
the
dismissal
court
entitles
Id.
section
of
to
Chatman
settlement
of
were
attempt
to
of
to
establish a
proof"
use
lack
the
of
Id.
The
Jack
malicious
The
element
of
"[a]
his
972.
a
applies
favorable-disposition
that
and
at
proof
indicated that
compromise
Wal-Mart
proceedings
in
appears
971.
at
by
between
criminal
Id.
as
rebutted
settlement
bought
the
be
a
i n Chatman
unchallenged
"favorable
regarding
2d
having
favor."
discussion
the
So.
stated
prosecution
terminated
d i s m i s s a l can
d i s m i s s a l r e s u l t e d from
Chatman,
the
of
sheet
case
from
the
against
municipal
Wesson
The
substance of the
The
same
Wesson
was
case contains
was
court
pay
sheet
the
14
court
that
pursuant
agreement does not
to
case-action-summary
reflecting
"dismissed
case-action-summary
ordered
the
the
to
agreement."
appear i n the
reflects,
costs
of
criminal
record.
however,
the
that
criminal
2080959
case.
Wesson h e r s e l f t e s t i f i e d
about
an
when
her
further
had
agreement;
criminal
testified
that
threw
i t out
We
agree
that
actual
therefore,
knowledge
costs
was
of
from using
arguing
that
bars
to
an
agreement,
Just
such
dismissal
the
facie
evidence
2d
an
the
do
costs
so.
She
criminal
case
s t u p i d and
the
an
the
proceeding
was
from
although
that
she
Wesson's
had
bars
c r i m i n a l case
terminated
a l a c k of p r o b a b l e
denied
court
Thus,
criminal
the
as
i n her
the
case
to
pay
plaintiff
a basis
dismissal
cause.
and,
paid
r e q u i r i n g her
agreement
the
case
case
she
criminal attorney.
using
15
criminal
criminal
that
agreement
971-72.
at
of
court
to
the
anything
i n d i c a t i n g , without
Wesson,
admitted
of
plaintiff
that
s e t t l e d her
establishes
to
the
her
agreement,
peace."
pursuant
the
know
paid
w h o l e t h i n g was
reflects
Wesson
as
had
thought that
i n s t r u c t i o n of her
costs.
she
d i d not
court."
her
conclusively
court
had
record
that
any
dismissed
also
the
"bought
at the
record
of
she
instructed
she
pursuant
dispute,
that
because "the
judge
dismissed
said
attorney
been d i s m i s s e d
was
she
that
favor,
as
for
i t
prima
C h a t m a n , 429
So.
2080959
T u r n i n g now t o t h e f a l s e - i m p r i s o n m e n t c l a i m , we n o t e
our
conclusion
material
t h a t Wesson f a i l e d
fact
regarding
the
to create
lack
relates to her malicious-prosecution
to
this
claim
14(a)
and
from
claims
detained
as w e l l .
( c ) ,both
a merchant
false
probable
cause
as i t
claim i s determinative
t o A l a . Code
and
imprisonment
1975, §
i t s employee
instituted
15-10-
a r e immune
by
person
that
sections
was
attempting
to
provided
a
merchant or i t s employee had p r o b a b l e cause f o r b e l i e v i n g
detained
of s h o p l i f t i n g ,
as
the
person
the suspicion
a genuine issue of
that
the
on
of
Pursuant
of
that
shoplift.
provide:
"(a) A peace o f f i c e r , a merchant o r a m e r c h a n t ' s
e m p l o y e e who h a s p r o b a b l e c a u s e f o r b e l i e v i n g t h a t
goods h e l d
f o r sale
by t h e merchant
have
been
u n l a w f u l l y t a k e n b y a p e r s o n a n d t h a t he c a n r e c o v e r
t h e m b y t a k i n g t h e p e r s o n i n t o c u s t o d y may, f o r t h e
purpose of attempting
to e f f e c t such recovery,
take
the
person
into
custody
and
detain
him
in a
r e a s o n a b l e manner f o r a r e a s o n a b l e l e n g t h o f t i m e .
Such t a k i n g i n t o c u s t o d y and d e t e n t i o n by a peace
o f f i c e r , merchant or merchant's employee s h a l l not
render such p o l i c e o f f i c e r , merchant or merchant's
employee c r i m i n a l l y or c i v i l l y
liable
for false
a r r e s t , f a l s e imprisonment or unlawful
detention.
" ( c ) A m e r c h a n t o r a m e r c h a n t ' s e m p l o y e e who
c a u s e s s u c h a r r e s t a s p r o v i d e d f o r i n s u b s e c t i o n (a)
of t h i s s e c t i o n o f a p e r s o n f o r l a r c e n y o f goods
h e l d f o r s a l e s h a l l n o t be c r i m i n a l l y o r c i v i l l y
16
Those
2080959
l i a b l e f o r f a l s e a r r e s t or f a l s e imprisonment
where
t h e m e r c h a n t or m e r c h a n t ' s employee has
probable
cause
for
believing
that
the
person
arrested
committed l a r c e n y of goods h e l d f o r s a l e . "
§
15-10-14.
As
noted
above, J a c k had p r o b a b l e
had
purposefully
the
failed
information
he
had
Wesson's d e t e n t i o n .
store
without
information
left
the
least
compiled
occasions,
on
pay
f o r her
to
J u l y 13,
Wesson,
we
that
institute
have
and
Likewise,
at
the
time
she
left
the
Wal-Mart
prescriptions.
i n d i c a t i n g that
her
Jack
Wal-Mart
there
and
Jack
that
d i d not
criminal proceedings
against
Jack's
because
affirm
favor
of
on
the
had
Wesson
had
Wesson
on
at
leaving
opportunities
existed
are
to
probable
immune
from
claim.
Jack
we
and
two
of
Jack
prescriptions
observed
Because
determined
Wal-Mart
prescriptions,
Mart's
him
for
and
on
to
2004, a f t e r h a v i n g
false-imprisonment
Because
the
paying
prescriptions.
detain
establish
her
Wal-Mart
other
store
to
by
without
the
Wesson's
for
Wesson
that
Wesson a d m i t s
paying
to suspect
f o r her p r e s c r i p t i o n s based
available
store
two
cause
to pay
cause
the
the
failed
have p r o b a b l e
judgment
malicious-prosecution
of
to
cause
Wesson f o r t h e f t
summary
existence
17
Wesson
probable
in
of
Wal-
claim.
cause
for
2080959
W e s s o n ' s d e t e n t i o n , we
a f f i r m t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f
Wal-Mart
the
and
Jack
on
u n d e r § 1 5 - 1 0 - 1 4 ( a ) and
false-imprisonment
claim
( c ) , t h e y a r e immune f r o m
because,
that
claim.
AFFIRMED.
Thompson,
Moore,
P.J.,
and
J . , concurs
P i t t m a n and
i n the
18
Bryan,
J J . , concur.
result, without
writing.
