Clark v. Skaggs Companies, Inc.,

Posted on: November 7, 2015 by in Risk of Lawsuits
No Comments

It is not disputed that Johnny Rogers was a security guard for appellant and that he was on duty on December 18, 1984. Two witnesses [**10] testified on behalf of appellant, both of whom were familiar with the security policies of Skaggs stores and Advance Security. Both witnesses stated Rogers had been instructed on security policies, and that Rogers was instructed to attempt to apprehend and detain possible shoplifters and, if the suspect is cooperative, to “follow through with whatever is necessary”. Furthermore, both witnesses stated that it was against policy for security personnel to make sexual advances to a suspected shoplifter and that if such incident should occur and be brought to the attention of the management, the employment would be terminated.

Appellant does not deny that Rogers put his hands upon Clark’s breasts and squeezed. Rather, appellant argues that, in so doing, Rogers was acting outside the scope and course of his employment. Appellant states that the evidence, as testified to by respondent that “it was obvious” that there was nothing inside her breast pockets, establishes that Rogers acted for his own gratification and was in no way acting to benefit his employer’s business. Appellant concludes that there was no evidence that Rogers acted within the scope and [*551] course of his employment [**11] and that the evidence and legitimate inferences therefrom were such that reasonable minds could not differ on this.

Clark testified that during the time she was with the security guard, approximately fifteen minutes, she felt that she could not leave. Clark stated that she no longer feels free to browse through stores, she feels paranoid when shopping, and she no longer picks up little objects to examine them while shopping. Clark testified that she did not see a doctor about her problems, but that she had spoken with her father who is a doctor.
The jury awarded Clark $7,500 for the false imprisonment and $20,000 for the battery. Any other pertinent facts will be recited infra as necessary to the disposal of appellant’s [**6] points.

Comments are closed.