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 and unjustifiable force. The last cause of action for dale is negligence. Dale inadvertently or unintentionally hurt Bob so severely, that Bob had a second stroke rendering him unable to speak and left him partially paralyzed. The Four required elements for negligence are satisfied. Was a duty of care owed to Bob, and was that duty of care broken? Yes there was, Dale did not watch the required video, which explains how to deal with thieves. Had Dale watched the video, this situation would have been handled in the correct manner, a reasonable person would have watched the video and would have known how to deal with the situation. Causation and Damages, the third and fourth criteria for negligence are also satisfied. Dale was injured to the extent that he can no longer speak, or live a normal day-to-day life as he once could. The damage done was a direct result of the careless conduct, and there is no question that but for the chokehold, Bob would have developed these serious problems. If we take a look at the thin skull rule, we must take our victims as we find them. Although Bobs first stroke was not a factor in the injuries sustained in this case, we can still explain to the courts that if a person experiences greater injury from our conduct than would be expected because of a unique physical condition, there is nonetheless a responsibility to compensate for all consequences for the injury. The supervisor was negligent; not only should Dale have been properly trained, the supervisor recorded a pass on Dales “So you want to Catch a Thieve” exam, even though Dale never took the test. The supervisor owed a duty of care that he breached when he falsely documented a pass for Dales exam result. This resulted in Dale being untrained in the field, which led to the Incident between Dale and Bob. As discussed in the case R. v. Chen, A sophisticated manager will often discourage employees from apprehending shoplifters, since the potential loss from goods stolen...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document