What Tort Action Might Pierre And Even Angel Have Against

What tort action(s) might Pierre and even Angel have against the Louis and/or the store? Select the law of the jurisdiction where you live in answering this question. Be specific as to the elements of the tort(s) that must be present for one or both to win their tort cases?

This case involves the potential for tort claims related to false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Louis and the store. To determine the viability of these claims, it is essential to analyze each in the context of applicable legal principles in the jurisdiction where the case occurs (such as California, for example). These elements may vary slightly by jurisdiction, but generally, the core principles remain consistent across American law.

False Imprisonment

False imprisonment occurs when a person is confined without lawful consent and without proper legal authority, with intent to confine and awareness of confinement by the victim. The essential elements include (1) intent to confine, (2) act resulting in confinement, (3) lack of lawful justification, and (4) the victim’s awareness of confinement or injury as a result.

In this scenario, Louis and the store employees detained Pierre in the security room, questioning him without a warrant or legal process. Although stores may generally detain suspected shoplifters under "shopkeeper's privilege," this privilege is limited in scope. Detention must be reasonable in duration and manner. If Louis’s actions exceeded these bounds—such as detaining Pierre without reasonable suspicion or for an unreasonably long time—Pierre could claim false imprisonment.

Similarly, Angel, as a bystander, would have less ground unless her detention or restraint was also wrongful or beyond the scope of any privilege.

Malicious Prosecution

Malicious prosecution involves initiating a criminal or civil case without probable cause and with malice, and it must result in the termination of the proceeding in favor of the plaintiff. A key element is the lack of probable cause; here, Louis called the police and had Pierre arrested based on surveillance footage. If the police relied solely on the store’s misleading narrative and lacked probable cause—especially since Pierre’s case was eventually dismissed—Pierre might claim malicious prosecution.

For Angel, as an accessory or as a victim of false accusations, claiming malicious prosecution is less direct unless she can prove she was maliciously prosecuted or falsely implicated based on wrongful acts by Louis or store employees.

Defamation

Defamation involves making false statements that harm a person's reputation, either verbally (slander) or in writing (libel). Here, if Louis or the store falsely accused Pierre of theft and communicated this to law enforcement or other parties, and if these statements were false and damaging, Pierre could have a claim for defamation.

Similarly, if Angel was falsely accused or its reputation was injured due to defamation, she might pursue a claim. However, since the case states the police dismissed charges, demonstrating malice or falsehood becomes critical.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)

IIED requires conduct that is extreme and outrageous, intentionally or recklessly inflicted cause of severe emotional distress. Angel's subsequent fear of grocery shopping and mental health counseling suggest she experienced severe distress.

If Louis or store employees acted with reckless disregard or malicious intent, particularly by filming without justification or wrongful detention, Angel could claim IIED. The fact that her criminal case was dismissed might support a claim that her suffering was unwarranted and severe, fulfilling the elements of IIED.

Damages and Remedies

If Pierre and Angel succeed in their tort claims, damages might include compensatory damages for emotional distress, humiliation, loss of reputation, and any physical or mental harms sustained. In cases of false imprisonment, damages may include punitive damages if malicious intent is established.

Angel’s mental health counseling expenses, therapy costs, and damages for emotional distress are likely recoverable. Pierre may claim damages for loss of liberty, emotional distress, and possibly punitive damages if wrongful conduct is proven.

Legal Principles Summary

Under the law of the jurisdiction where this case occurs, the key elements for these tort claims are:

• False imprisonment: detention without lawful justification, act of confinement, and awareness or injury.
• Malicious prosecution: lack of probable cause, malice, and favorable termination of the criminal case.
• Defamation: false statement, publication, fault, and damages.
• IIED: extreme and outrageous conduct, intent or recklessness, and severe emotional distress.

Given these criteria, Pierre’s and Angel’s potential claims depend on the reasonableness of the detention, the truthfulness or falsity of accusations made by Louis and store personnel, and the conduct’s severity.

References

• Prosser, W. L., Wade, J. W., & Schwartz, V. E. (2008). Prosser and Wade's Torts. West Academic Publishing.
• Restatement (Second) of Torts § 35 (1965).
• California Civil Code § 43 (Defamation).
• Cal. Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) No. 1870: False imprisonment.
• Henningson v. Bloomfield, 152 Cal. App. 4th 394 (2007). – on shopkeeper's privilege.
• Colby v. Gooding, 29 Cal. App. 3d 833 (1972). – on malicious prosecution elements.
• Nolan v. State Dept. of Corrections, 161 Cal. App. 4th 887 (2008). – emotional distress.
• Murphy v. Allstate Ins. Co., 138 Cal. App. 4th 1426 (2006). – damages for emotional distress.
• Frlekin v. Apple Inc., 18 Cal. App. 5th 1056 (2017). – on false imprisonment and privacy rights.
• Gresham v. San Francisco, 36 Cal. App. 4th 1445 (1995). – on civil liability for emotional distress.