a) There are many defendants in this case. First and foremost Dale, the loss prevention officer for Wal-Mart, is a defendant because he intentionally restrained Bob against his will and the restraint was unlawful. Dale also failed to follow company rules; Dale was supposed to watch a video that explained how to catch and deal with thieves but decided not to watch the video. The second defendant would be Dale’s supervisor. The supervisor recorded a pass on an exam that dale did not take. The exam Dale failed to write was based on the video that Dale did not watch. The third defendant would be Wal-Mart; Wal-Mart assumes liability because they could be at fault for not properly training staff. Bob would want to take action on Wal-Mart because they have the “deepest pockets” and would most likely be the only defendant with enough money to pay out compensation. Wal-Mart would be vicariously liable for Dales actions.
b) The causes of action taken on Dale are the tort of false imprisonment, the tort of assault and battery, and negligence. If the customer, Bob, has not stolen any goods there is no justification for holding Bob. Bob was intentionally restrained against his will, and there was no lawful reason to do so. This restraint unlawful for two main reasons: first, Bob had not stolen anything; and two; Dale used unreasonable force in restraining Bob. The practices Dale used were strictly prohibited by company policy as stated by the video, “ So You Want to Catch Thieves: Guidelines for Success”, given by Wal-Mart. All of the things Dale did to apprehend Bob do not fulfill section 494 of the criminal code. The next cause of action taken is the tort of assault and battery. The right of bob to control his body and who touches it, is violated. Dale put a chokehold on Bob and had absolutely no right in doing so, it was even explicitly expressed to not use chokeholds on any suspected shoplifter in the video Dale was required to watch, Dale acted with excessive