Coblyn v Kennedys Case Brief

Coblyn v. Kennedy’s Inc Plaintiff: Coblyn Defendant: Kennedy’s, Inc. Party’s Relationship, Identities, Description: Π shopper Δ a department store Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Date: 1971 Citation: 359 Mass. 319, 268 N.E.2d 860 Procedural History:  In Trial Court Δ moved for a motion for directed verdict after evidence was concluded  Motion was Denied and jury returned to find for plaintiff in the sum of $12,500  Δ appealed, took exceptions (see arguments) Key Facts:  Δ was a 70-year-old man that went into Kennedy’s (Δ) to purchase a sport coat. He was wearing a woolen short, topcoat, hat, and an ascot (all of which were previously purchased)  Π proceeded to section with sport coats and tried some on, during which time he removed his hat, topcoat, and ascot, placing the ascot in his pocket.  Π paid for the sports coat and left it there for alterations. He was exiting the store when he stopped and took the ascot out of his pocket. He put it around his neck and knotted it.  Then a store employee, Goss, comes over and grabs π by the arm. He asks him where he got the scarf and that he needed to come with him right away to see the manager. Another employee was located nearby. Π agreed  Π explained the what had happened, but the event was so alarmed that he was hospitalized and treated for a myocardial infarct.  There was no unlawful restraint imposed by the force or plaintiff’s freedom to answer. Issue(s):  Did the trial judge correctly deny the Defendant’s Motion for Directed Verdict?  Was the court justified in refusing to give the jury certain requested instructions by the Δ?  Did the evidence show that there were reasonable grounds for detention? Summary of Argument:  Δ appeals based on (1) the denial of the Motion for Directed Verdict and (2) the refusal of the trial judge to give the jury “subjective” instructions in which the standard was whether the defendant had an honest and strong suspicion that the plaintiff was committing or attempting to commit larceny  Δ also claims their employee was acting within his rights of GL c.231 §94B, which allows a defense for false imprisonment when a person is detained in questioning them  committing or attempting to commit larceny of goods from a merchant… So long as it is done in a reasonable manner, within reasonable time, and for reasonable grounds Also claims that there was no unlawful restrains since it was not imposed by force or threat upon the π’s freedom of movement. Rule: Any demonstration of physical power, which, to all appearances, can be avoided only by submission, operates as a false imprisonment. Holding(s):  There was sufficient evidence to deny defendants motion for direct verdict, but of unlawful restraint to submit the question to the jury – evidence warranted the conclusion that Gross was not justified in believing plaintiff was shop lifting.  Trial court was justified in giving their “prudent and cautious” instructions to the jury Court’s Reasoning:  The law has settled that any restraint is sufficient to constitute an imprisonment… any demonstration of physical power to which, to all appearances, can only be avoided by submissions, operates as effectively as imprisonment.  There was another employee at Gross’ side. Given the π’s age, his heart conditions, that there was another employee at Gross’ side, he couldn’t do anything but comply with the Δ’s complaint  The rule the judge gave the jury, the “Prudent and Cautious Man Rule,” is an objective standard and requires more rigorous and restrictive conduct than is contemplated by defendant’s request for a “subjective test.” This test is needed otherwise, if the court adopted the defendant’s test the merchant could detain anyone on their own hunches without regard to facts.  In regard to GL c.231 o Detention was for reasonable length of time o No reasonable ground larceny was being committed o No reasonable manner by which to effect detention  Π had no aggressive intention to leave  Gross failed to disclose he worked for the store Judgement or Order: Exceptions Overruled Dissent: n/a Comments/Dicta/Notes: implies that the decisions of shop owners to detain potential shoplifters be held to the same level of scrutiny as that applied to police officers (who are also subject to an amount of time they can hold someone)