AI Case Brief
Generate an AI-powered case brief with:
📋Key Facts
⚖️Legal Issues
📚Court Holding
💡Reasoning
🎯Significance
Estimated cost: $0.001 - $0.003 per brief
Full Opinion
=== Opinion ===
No. 82-110
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF T I STATE OF MONTANA
IE
1983
DEBRA JO HARDY,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
LaBELLEIS DISTRIEUTING CO., STEVEN
E. NEWSOM, Loss Prevention Manager;
DAVID KOTKE, Showroom Manager,
Defendants and Respondents.
Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Yellowstone, The Honorable
Charles Luedke, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Joseph P. Hennessey, Billings, Montana
For Respondents:
James L. Jones, Billings, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: January 27, 1953
Decided: March 31, 1983
8
&jLL A+Q/c$lw'
Clerk
Mr. J u s t i c e L . C. G u l b r a n d s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of the Court.
Plaintiff , Debra J o Hardy brought t h i s a c t i o n a g a i n s t defen-
dants for false imprisonment. The District Court of the
T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Yellowstone County, i s s u e d judgment
aEter a jury verdict in favor of defendants and plaintiff
appeals.
Defendant, LaBelle I s D i s t r i b u t i n g Company ( L a B e l l e I s ) , hired
Hardy as a temporary employee on December 1, 1 9 7 8 . She was
assigned duty as a sales clerk in the jewelry department.
On December 9 , 1 9 7 8 , a n o t h e r employee f o r L a B e l l e I s , Jackie
Renner, thought she saw Hardy steal one of the watches that
J A a B e l l e l s had in stock. Jackie Renner reported her belief to
L a B e l l e s showroom manager t h a t e v e n i n g .
On t h e morning o f December 1 0 , Hardy was a p p r o a c h e d by t h e
a s s i s t a n t manager o f L a B e l l e l s j e w e l r y d e p a r t m e n t and told that
a l l new e m p l o y e e s were g i v e n a t o u r of t h e s t o r e . He showed h e r
into the showroom m a n a g e r ' s o f f i c e and then left, closing the
d o o r b e h i n d him.
T h e r e is c o n f l i c t i n g t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g who was p r e s e n t i n
the showroom manager I s off ice when Hardy arrived. Hardy
t e s t i £ i e d t h a t David Kotke , t h e showroom m a n a g e r , Steve Newsom,
the store's loss prevention manager, and a uniformed policeman
were present. Newsom and one of the policemen in the room
testified t h a t another policeman, i n s t e a d of K o t k e , was p r e s e n t .
Hardy was t o l d t h a t s h e had been a c c u s e d o f s t e a l i n g a w a t c h .
Hardy d e n i e d t a k i n g t h e w a t c h and a g r e e d t o t a k e a l i e d e t e c t o r
test. According to conflicting testimony, the meeting lasted
a p p r o x i m a t e l y from t w e n t y to f o r t y - f i v e m i n u t e s .
Hardy t o o k t h e l i e d e t e c t o r t e s t which s u p p o r t e d h e r s t a t e -
m e n t t h a t s h e had n o t t a k e n t h e w a t c h . The showroom manager apo-
l o g i z e d t o Hardy t h e n e x t morning and t o l d h e r t h a t s h e was s t i l l
welcome t o work a t L a B e l l e l s . The employee who r e p o r t e d seeing
Hardy t a k e t h e watch a l s o apologized. The two e m p l o y e e s then
a r g u e d b r i e f l y , and Hardy l e f t t h e s t o r e .
H a r d y b r o u g h t t h i s a c t i o n c l a i m i n g t h a t d e f e n d a n t s had wrong-
f u l l y d e t a i n e d h e r a g a i n s t h e r w i l l when s h e was q u e s t i o n e d a b o u t
t h e watch.
On a p p e a l H a r d y r a i s e s b a s i c a l l y t w o i s s u e s
1. W h e t h e r t h e e v i d e n c e is s u f f i c i e n t to s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t
and judgment; and
2. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n the i s s u a n c e of its
instructions.
The t w o k e y e l e m e n t s o f f a l s e i m p r i s o n m e n t are t h e r e s t r a i n t
of an individual against h i s w i l l and t h e u n l a w f u l n e s s of such
restraint. 3 2 Am. J u r . 2 d , F a l s e I m p r i s o n m e n t , § 5 . The i n d i v i d u a l
may b e r e s t r a i n e d b y a c t s or m e r e l y b y w o r d s w h i c h h e fears to
disregard. Panisko v. Dreibelbis (1942), 1 1 3 Elont. 310, 124
P.2d 997; Kroeger v. Passmore ( 1 9 0 8 ) , 36 M o n t . 504, 9 3 P. 805.
Here,. t h e r e is a m p l e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e j u r y ' s finding
t h a t H a r d y was n o t u n l a w f u l l y r e s t r a i n e d a g a i n s t h e r w i l l . While
Hardy s t a t e d that she f e l t compelled t o r e m a i n i n t h e showroom
manager's o f f ice, she also admitted t h a t s h e wanted t o s t a y and
c l a r i f y the situation. She d i d n o t a s k to l e a v e . S h e was n o t
told she could not leave. No t h r e a t of f o r c e or o t h e r w i s e was
made t o c o m p e l h e r t o s t a y . Although she followed the a s s i s t a n t
manager i n t o t h e o f f i c e u n d e r p r e t e n s e of a t o u r , she t e s t i f i e d
a t t r i a l t h a t s h e would h a v e f o l l o w e d him v o l u n t a r i l y i f s h e had
known t h e t r u e p u r p o s e o f t h e m e e t i n g and t h a t two p o l i c e m e n were
in the room. Under these circumstances, the jury could e a s i l y
find t h a t H a r d y was not detained against her w i l l . See also,
Meinecke v. Skaggs (1949), 1 2 3 Mont. 308, 213 P.2d 237, and
R o b e r t s v . Coleman ( 1 9 6 1 ) , 228 O r . 2 8 6 , 3 6 5 P.2d 7 9 .
Hardy also claims the District Court erred by issuing
c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s 1 0 , 12, 1 3 , and 1 4 , and b y r e f u s i n g h e r p r o -
p o s e d i n s t r u c t i o n s 7 , 11, 1 7 , 1 9 , and 3 0 . Hardy a r g u e s t h a t t h e
court's instructions failed to comply w i t h the facts and law,
w h i c h were more a c c u r a t e l y r e p r e s e n t e d i n h e r proposed instruc-
tions .
Where jury instructions, taken as a whole, state the law
a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e c a s e , a p a r t y c a n n o t claim r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r as
to the giving of certain instructions. Goodnough v. State
(1982) , Mont . , 647 P.2d 3 6 4 , 39 S t . R e p . 1 1 7 0 .
Here, the court's instructions adequately stated the l a w on
f a l s e imprisonment. A p p e l l a n t ' s p r o p o s e d i n s t r u c t i o n s 7 , 11, 1 7 ,
19, and 30 either reiterated the court's instructions o r were
inappropriate , and t h e r e f ore were properly r e f used by the
District Court.
Instruction 10 g i v e n by the District Court provided that
there was no false imprisonment if the plaintiff voluntarily
complied with the request to remain in the showroom m a n a g e r ' s
office. This is o n e o f t h e k e y e l e m e n t s of false imprisonment
and was properly given. 32 Arn.Jur.2df False Imprisonment,
§lo; G r i f f i n v . C l a r k ( 1 9 3 5 ) , 5 5 I d a h o 3 6 4 , 42 P.2d 297.
Court's instruction 12 provided t h a t a n e m p l o y e r upon rea-
s o n a b l e c a u s e may r e q u e s t a p o l i c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Instruction 13
provided that a store e m p l o y e e may temporarily detain another
person t o i n v e s t i g a t e a t h e f t o n l y upon p r o b a b l e c a u s e . These
instructions paraphrase the standard rule requiring probable
cause before a p e r s o n may be d e t a i n e d . Duran v. B u t t r e y Food,
Inc. (1980), Mont . , 616 P.2d 327, 38 S t . R e p . 1545.
A p p e l l a n t f a i l e d t o o b j e c t t o i n s t r u c t i o n 1 4 , and f i n d i n g no
p l a i n e r r o r , w e need n o t r e v i e w t h e instruction. S t a t e Highway
Commission v . B e l d o n ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 1 6 6 Mont. 2 4 6 , 5 3 1 P.2d 1324.
Finding s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support the judgment and no
error i n t h e i s s u a n c e of the instructions, the D i s t r i c t Court's
j u d g m e n t is a£f i r m e d .
W e Concur:
%ce_ &@&,
Chief J u s t i c e
Additional Information
- source
- CourtListener
- subject
- Torts
- cluster id
- 878223
- match confidence
- exact