In the criminal case arising from the tragic beating of Bryan Stow at Dodger Stadium, testimony of Stow's friend revealed a great deal had transpired between Stow and his eventual assailants before the nearly fatal attack.  According to KTLA news, Stow's friend, Corey Maciel, testified at the preliminary hearing for the two suspects that Stow and his friends had endured hours of heckling and thrown food inside the stadium.  Even after this occurred, Stow's group was further taunted in the parking and loud words were exchanged before the final, vicious attack.  The two suspects, Marvin Norwood and Louie Sanchez, are now facing a number of serious felony charges.

See the KTLA news story and video HERE.

As a general principle, there is no duty for anyone to act to protect others from the misconduct or criminal acts of third parties.  However, such a duty may be present if there exists a “special relationship” between the parties.  Courts have found such a special relationship in cases involving the relationship between business proprietors such as shopping centers, restaurants, and bars, and their tenants, patrons, or invitees.  Where the special relationship duty exists the business owner must take reasonable steps to secure common areas against foreseeable criminal acts of third parties that are likely to occur in the absence of such precautionary measures.  In the Stow case, the Dodger security staff had a duty to protect patrons from foreseeable misconduct and criminal acts.  Since the Dodger security staff knew or reasonably should have known what was happening, their duty likely included an obligation to take reasonable, relatively simple, and minimally burdensome steps to attempt to avert that danger.  If Stow and his friends had been escorted to their vehicle by security or those causing a disturbance had been arrested for disturbing the peace, would the assault on Stow have occurred?  It seems likely it would not have happened.

Compensation for the victims of violent crimes that occur on a business owner’s property should be an important concern for all Californians.   When a business owner's patron is attacked on their property they should be held accountable if they failed to provide a reasonably safe environment, especially when they can prevent or effectively intervene in a criminal assault.   An Orange County personal injury lawyer with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has 21 years of experience handling personal injury and premises liability cases, including just this type.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you or a family member been a victim of a violent crime that occurred at a place of business?

Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above. This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter. A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

Over the weekend, Disneyland's California Adventure theme park was the site of a violent incident involving an apparently intoxicated patron and a member of Disney security.  The incident, captured on tape and available on You Tube, shows an apparently intoxicated guest (identified by KTLA news as 53-year-old Glenn Horlacher) swinging at a Disney security host and then refusing commands to get on the ground.  After being wrestled to the ground and pepper sprayed a number of times, Horlacher still refuses to comply and is eventually taken to the ground by security and other patrons at the park.  According to the news report, at least one Disney employee was transported to the hospital and treated for minor injuries.  Horlacher was reportedly cited and released.

See the KTLA news story and photograph HERE. 

The videotape on You Tube shows only part of the incident, but there is no doubt Horlacher should have been arrested for assault and battery when he took his first swing at the Disney security host.  After charging the Disney employee a second time and then swinging wildly while on the ground, additional crimes of assault and battery were committed.  All of this misconduct justified an arrest that should have been effectuated by Disney security.  What is perhaps more shocking than Horlacher's actions is the miserable job Disney security did handling the situation.  While some might argue the security staff was patient and did not overreact, their inaction and failure to effectively control Horlacher prolonged the incident, heightened the risk of injury to guests and park employees and ultimately led to the negative attention now being paid to the incident.  The security staff at Disney should have immediately arrested Horlacher for assault and battery and placed him in handcuffs, before quickly removing him from the public's view.  It was nothing short of negligent to handle the situation in the manner shown in the video, and fortuitous that other patrons were not injured.  At one point in the video, near the end, Horlacher is on the ground being restrained by patrons at the park and not one Disney employee.  In this context, with security and other employees already on the scene, that should never have happened.

Compensation for the victims of security misconduct should be an important concern for all Californians.  When security employees are negligent or commit intentional acts of misconduct, their employer should be held accountable and compensation paid to the victim.  An Orange County security misconduct attorney with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has more than 20 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you been a victim of  negligent or intentional misconduct by private security?

Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above.  This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter.  A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.  

According to an ABC news report, a Safeway security guard was fired after interrogating a 4-year-old girl for alleged shoplifting after he saw her eat from a bag of apricots and put the bag back on the shelf.  The little girl’s father apparently hadn’t noticed what his daughter had done and was quite surprised when he and his daughter were stopped by security after leaving the Safeway in Everett, Washington.  After the initial stop, the guard then interrogated Savannah Harp about the alleged theft.  The girl’s mother, Alissa Jones, reported that the guard told Harp’s father that the girl was banned from the store and that Safeway would be pressing charges.  Savannah, who can’t read or write yet, was forced to scribble on the piece of paper, presumably an acknowledgement of her wrongdoing.  Generally, anyone under the age of 14 is presumed incapable of committing a crime because they cannot appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct. 
Safeway officials were apparently outraged over the guard’s treatment of the little girl and issued a formal apology to her family. 

See the ABC news story HERE. 

Had the incident above occurred here in California, there is little doubt Safeway and/or their guard would be held liable for false imprisonment and a whole host of other torts.  Even though California law provides a retailer and their agent (the security guard) with a probable cause defense in situations similar to this, it would appear to have little to application to the facts here.  In order for the privilege to apply (and a defense to a civil claim to follow), the store security guard must have "probable cause" to believe the person to be detained has "unlawfully" taken or has attempted to unlawfully take merchandise from the store's premises.  Observation of a 4 year-old girl eating from a bag of apricots would hardly seem to meet that standard since the guard would have to reasonably believe the 4 year-old intended to steal or unlawfully deprive the store of their property, the apricots.  Since the so-called "merchant's privilege" would appear to have no application, the merchant and their agent would likely be civilly liable for any emotional injuries and economic damages sustained.  Since Safeway seems to have at least taken the right approach after the incident came to light, they may have spared themselves from the potential for a punitive damages award.

Compensation for the victims of store security misconduct should be an important concern for all Californians.  When an innocent patron is apprehended and then detained by security, without adequate cause, the retailer should be held accountable and compensation paid to the victim.  An Orange County false arrest lawyer with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has more than 20 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you been a victim of an unlawful arrrest or detention by store security?

Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above.  This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter.  A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.  

Last Wednesday, a 28 year-old, pregnant mother, Nicole Leszczynski, and her husband, Marcin, were arrested at a Safeway store in Honolulu for shoplifting when they forgot to pay for two sandwiches they ate while shopping.  To make matters even worse, because their 2 year-old daughter was with the couple when the incident occurred, she was taken away from her family and into state custody.  The Leszcynski family had only recently moved to Hawaii from California when the now nationally publicized incident occurred.  Nicole and Marcin were handcuffed, taken to the police station and released only after paying their bail and being held for several hours.

See the AP/Yahoo News story HERE.

In California, and in Hawaii, the crime of theft or shoplifting requires that the actor intend to permanently deprive the owner of their property.  In the case above, assuming that the Leszczynskis intended to pay for the sandwiches but simply forgot the wrappers in the cart at the check-out line, there was no crime.  In that scenario, their intent was not to deprive Safeway of their property.  Their actions in eating the sandwiches openly while shopping would seem to suggest they were not intending to conceal a crime.  Instead, their condcut would be consistent with an honest mistake, a lapse of memory.  Under the law, generally there must be a nexus between the act required to commit a crime and the intent to do so.

While it would appear there may not have been a crime committed, the store security involved in the Leszczynskis' apprehension was likely entitled under the law to detain the couple.  However, under the law in Hawaii, just like California, the store owner or their agent is only permitted to detain someone for a reasonable length of time to conduct an investigation, the so-called "merchant's privilege.".  Once it is determined no crime has been committed, however, the person or persons detained should not be formally arrested and charged with a crime.  In California, if the store agent goes beyond the limits of the merchant's privilege and prosecutes a patron unlawfully, the store can be held liable for false arrest and perhaps a host of other civil wrongs.

Compensation for the victims of store security misconduct should be an important concern for all Californians.  When an innocent patron is apprehended and then arrested by security, without adequate cause, the retailer should be held accountable and compensation paid to the victim.  An Orange County false arrest attorney with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has more than 20 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you been a victim of an unlawful arrrest or detention by store security?

Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above.  This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter.  A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case. 

KTLA news has reported the family of Bryan Stow has filed a lawsuit against the Dodgers organization earlier this week.  The lawsuit alleges that security cutbacks and antiquated facilities at Dodger Stadium contributed to the severity of the injuries Bryan Stow sustained in the attack.  The complaint filed with the court sets forth claims for negligence, premises liability, negligent hiring and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  Since the attack on Stow on March 31st, security has been tightened at Dodger Stadium, and LAPD stepped up its presence at the game, with officers on foot, horseback, bikes and Segways.

See the KTLA news story HERE.

In the civil case filed o n behalf of Bryan Stow, it must be shown by the plaintiff that the Dodgers organization was negligent, not just that the incident took place on Dodger Stadium property.  Evidence relevant to the negligence claim would likely include the history of violent criminal acts on the property, the training and qualifications of the security staff and the security policies and procedures implemented by the Dodgers.  In general, business proprietors (such as the Dodgers) owe a duty to their patrons to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition, and this duty includes an obligation to undertake reasonable steps to secure common areas against foreseeable criminal acts of third parties that are likely to occur in the absence of such precautionary measures.  Additionally, even if you assume the amount of security provided to be adequate in a particular situation, then the question becomes whether the security employees acted reasonably under the circumstances.  In the Stow case, the discovery conducted by the parties (the process through which the parties to a lawsuit formally exchange information and evidence) will enable both sides to determine whether the claims are meritorious and if the case should be resolved without the need for a jury trial.

Compensation for the victims of violent crimes that occur on a business owner’s property should be an important concern for all Californians.  When a business proprietor invites guests onto their property they should be held accountable if they fail to provide a reasonably safe environment, especially when they can prevent or effectively intervene in a criminal assault.  An Orange County personal injury attorney with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has 20 years of experience handling personal injury and premises liability cases, including just this type.  Mr. Ralph can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you or a family member been a victim of a violent crime that occurred at a business establishment?

• Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above.  This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter.  A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

The Los Angeles Times reported this morning that one of the suspects in the brutal beating of Giants fan Bryan Stow was taken into custody early this morning.  Citing official sources, the Times reported that at about 7 a.m. the Los Angeles Police Department SWAT team descended on an East Hollywood apartment building with a warrant in hand.  According to apartment building manager Maritza Camacho, police, using loudspeakers and with guns drawn, called out to the occupants of Apartment 25.  Arrested inside the apartment was one of the men police suspect in the March 31 beating at Dodger Stadium that left Stow with brain damage.  He remains to this day in critical condition.

See the Los Angeles Times story HERE.

Following the attack on Stow, Dodger Stadium reportedly beefed up security at the stadium to deal with fights that had been breaking out at games in recent years.  In general, a possessor of land who holds it open to the public for business purposes is subject to liability to members of the public for physical harm caused by the accidental, negligent, or intentionally harmful acts of third persons and by the failure of the possessor to exercise reasonable care to  discover that such acts are being done or are likely to be done, or give a warning adequate to enable the visitors to avoid the harm, or otherwise to protect them against it.  Here, Dodger Stadium would be liable if they acted unreasonably in failing to prevent the attack on Stow.  Should such a claim be brought by or on behalf of Stow, a civil jury could be called upon to apportion responsibility between the assailants and Dodger Stadium.  The question might be posed this way:  But for the neglect of Dodger Stadium, would the attack on Stow have occurred?

Compensation for the victims of violent crimes that occur on a business owner’s property should be an important concern for all Californians.  When a business proprietor invites guests onto their property they should be held accountable if they fail to provide a reasonably safe environment, especially when they can prevent or effectively intervene in a criminal assault.  An Orange County personal injury attorney with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has 20 years of experience handling personal injury and premises liability cases, including just this type.  Mr. Ralph can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you or a family member been a victim of a violent crime that occurred at a business establishment?

• Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above.  This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter.  A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

According to a story by KTLA news, family members of Bryan Stow are struggling to remain optimistic.  According to the story, Stow, the Giants fan who was brutally beaten while leaving a baseball game at Dodger Stadium, may never fully recover.   While a hospital spokesperson says Stow is being slowly weaned of the anti-seizures medication that he has been receiving since his violent brain injury, family members told KTLA that their son, husband, and father of two, may be gone forever.

See the KTLA story and photograph HERE.

The tragic story of Stow's attack and beating has made national headlines since the incident at Dodger Stadium on March 31st.  One issue that has arisen in the wake of this tragedy is whether Dodger Stadium security took reasonable steps to protect fans like Stow on the date of the incident.  It has been reported the patrons suspected of attacking and brutally beating Stow had caused earlier problems at the Stadium.  The question then becomes whether security had sufficient, if any, information that should have led them to take protective measures, for the benefit of the law-abiding fans present.  Under California law, the general duty of a property owner (like Dodger Stadium) includes the duty to take affirmative action to control the wrongful acts of third persons which threaten invitees where the occupant has reasonable cause to anticipate such acts and the probability of injury resulting therefrom.  Whether Dodger security had any such duty will likely be decided when and if a civil action is brought by or on behalf of Bryan Stow and/or his family.

Compensation for the victims of violent crimes that occur on a business owner’s property should be an important concern for all Californians.  When a business proprietor invites guests onto their property they should be held accountable if they fail to provide a reasonably safe environment, especially when they can prevent or effectively intervene in a criminal assault.  A personal injury attorney with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has 20 years of experience handling personal injury and premises liability cases, including just this type.  Mr. Ralph can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you or a family member been a victim of a violent crime that occurred at a business establishment?

• Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above.  This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter.  A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

According to KTLA news, two women have been charged after a video showing a brutal attack on a teenage girl at a Baltimore-area McDonald's restaurant surfaced on the internet Friday.  Citing the Baltimore Sun, KTLA reported the police have charged a 14-year-old girl as a juvenile, and charges are pending for her 18-year-old accomplice.  The attack apparently occurred on April 18th at the 6300 Kenwood McDonald’s location.   The Sun also also reported that State’s Attorney Scott D. Shellenberger says the attack may be classified as a hate crime because the attackers were both black, and the victim white.

See the KTLA news story and video HERE.

In the video, McDonald's employees can be seen making what appears to be a half-hearted attempt to intervene in the assault.  The vicious attack goes on and on before finally ending only after an elderly woman gets involved and the victim appears to go into convulsions.  Under California law, a property owner has an obligation to provide a reasonably safe environment for their patrons.  This duty requires the property owner and their employees to intervene when a third party criminal assault is imminent or is taking place within the business.  If it can be shown the business owner failed to take the steps required by law and such intervention would have prevented or lessened the injuries and damages sustained, the victim may possess a valid cause of action.  In such cases, it is often necessary to offer the testimony of an expert in private security/law enforcement to address the issue of causation.

Compensation for the victims of violent crimes that occur on a business owner’s property should be an important concern for all Californians.  When a business proprietor invites guests onto their property they should be held accountable if they fail to provide a reasonably safe environment, especially when they can prevent or effectively intervene in a criminal assault.  An Orange County personal injury attorney with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has 20 years of experience handling personal injury and premises liability cases, including just this type.  Mr. Ralph can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you or a family member been a victim of a violent crime that occurred at a place of business?

• Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above.  This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter.  A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

KTLA news is reporting today that the Dodgers are looking for ways to improve fan safety in the wake of the Brian Stow beating on opening day.  For example, half-price beer will no longer be sold during baseball games at Dodgers Stadium, presumably in an effort to reduce the number of intoxicated and unruly fans at the park.  Dodgers owner Frank McCourt also agreed to create a computer mapping and crime tracking system for the stadium similar to the one the LAPD uses to monitor crime patterns and hotspots throughout Los Angeles.  LAPD Chief Charlie Beck promised to dramatically increase police presence at games as well.

See the full KTLA story HERE.

Dodger Stadium has long had a reputation for having inadequate and/or heavy-handed security.  A number of videotapes on You Tube depict Dodger Security Department employees using what appears to be excessive or unnecessary force.  Currently, Mr. Ralph's office is representing a Dodger Stadium patron who was thrown violently to the ground and handcuffed after he allegedly "pushed" a member of the security staff.  The patron denies making any physical contact with the security employee, and, even though the Los Angeles Police Department was called to the scene, the patron was not taken into police custody nor was he ever charged with any crime.  Interestingly, the paperwork completed by the security staff banishing the patron from the park indicates he was told to leave the park for using profanity, not assaulting a security employee.  The civil lawsuit against Dodger Stadium is currently set for trial in April of 2012.

Compensation for the victims of security misconduct should be an important concern for all Californians.  When an innocent patron is assaulted and/or arrested by private security, the business owner should be held accountable and compensation paid to the victim.  An Orange County security misconduct attorney with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has 20 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you been a victim of an unlawful arrest by security?

• This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter.  A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

The Associated Press and Fox News are reporting  the San Francisco Giants fan who was beaten at Dodger Stadium after last week's opening game shows signs of brain damage and remains in critical condition.  While the victim, Bryan Stow, remains hospitalized police detectives are looking into unconfirmed reports that the same suspects struck other Giants fans minutes before the attack that left Stow in a coma.  Stow, a 42-year-old paramedic and father of two from Santa Cruz, remains in critical but guarded condition at Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center.  As a result of the attack, he suffered a severe skull fracture and bad bruising to his brain's frontal lobes, said Dr. Gabriel Zada, a neurosurgeon.  According to Zada, "there is evidence of brain injury and dysfunction."

See the Fox News story HERE.

Among the issues coming to light in this case is whether the Dodgers' security staff took reasonable steps to prevent this assault from occurring on their premises.   There are now unconfirmed reports that these same assailants attacked other Giants fans prior to the vicious attack on Stow.   Assuming this to be true, then the question becomes whether, under California law, the Dodgers' duty to take reasonable steps to secure common areas against foreseeable criminal acts of third parties was fulfilled.  Under California premises liability law, a business proprietor has a duty to take affirmative action to control the wrongful acts of third persons which threaten invitees where the proprietor has reasonable cause to anticipate such acts and the probability of resulting injury.  Here, if the Dodgers' security staff failed to intervene and protect Stow from the assault that should have been foreseen, the Dodgers would be liable.

Compensation for the victims of violent crimes that occur on a business owner's property is an important concern for all Californians.  When a business proprietor invites guests onto their property they should be held accountable if they fail to provide a reasonably safe environment.  An Orange County personal injury attorney with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has 20 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type.  Mr. Ralph can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you or a family member been a victim of a violent crime that occurred at a place of business?

• Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above.  This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter.  A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

In a recent case, a patron (who was a frequent shopper at an upscale retailer), traveled to the Beverly Hills store on  in order to return a sweater.  He entered the store just before 3:00 p.m. with a store bag containing the sweater.  He looked around a bit for something that he may possibly want to exchange for the sweater.  While walking around the store, the customer noticed two people who he believed were watching him.  He didn’t think too much of it before selecting a pair of pants and walking into the dressing room area.   The pants the client tried on were a high fashion “skinny fit” pair of jeans, but he could barely get them over his upper leg.  He took them off, left them in the changing room and went back and gave the sweater to the saleswoman to begin his exchange. 

As the saleswoman began the exchange, Mr. Ralph's client saw a jacket and went over to it and tried it on.  He ultimately decided against the jacket so he returned to the customer service counter and completed his exchange.  The client then exited the store.

As the innocent customer stepped out of the store he was approached by the two loss prevention agents he had seen earlier.  They said they wanted to ask him some questions, and they brought him back inside to a room where they accused him of trying to steal the pants.  The loss prevention agents and a store manager made several attempts to coerce the client into signing a piece of paper admitting guilt.  When the client refused, the accusations continued and a report for the police was apparently prepared.  During this time, it was becoming more and more apparent the client was being detained for damaging the pants, as opposed to attempting to steal them.

It is important to note that this customer did not have any ink on him and the loss prevention agents refused to show him the pants.  He also possessed several hundred dollars in cash as well as credit cards in his wallet.  After several hours, the police were summoned, and the client was taken into custody.  The store's agents insisted on arresting the  client for vandalism, and he was taken out of the store in handcuffs.

At the police station, this wholly innocent shopper was fingerprinted and put in a holding cell and then a single cell.  After posting the $1,000.00 bond and having his background checked for prior convictions and/or warrants (of which there were none), the client was released sometime between 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m.

 THE MERCHANT'S PRIVILEGE

In general, merchants are protected from civil liability for false imprisonment by a common law privilege that permits the merchant to detain for a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner for investigation any person whom the merchant had probable cause to believe had unlawfully taken or attempted to take merchandise from the premises. (See Collyer v. S.H. Kress Co. (1936) 5 Cal.2d 175; People v. Zelinski (1979) 155 Cal. Rptr. 575, 594 P.2d 1000)   The “merchant's privilege” has been codified as subdivision (f) of California Penal Code section 490.5.  In this case, however, there was no cause whatsoever to believe the client had stolen or attempted to steal anything.  The arrest for vandalism was a thinly veiled attempt to cover the unlawful detention for shoplifting.  The ruse did not work as the criminal charges were dropped, and Mr. Ralph successfully pursued the retailer for unlawful arrest.  The matter was settled for a confidential sum.

Compensation for the victims of store security misconduct should be an important concern for all Californians.  When an innocent patron is apprehended and then arrested by security, without adequate cause, the retailer should be held accountable and compensation paid to the victim.  An Orange County false arrest attorney with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has nearly 20 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you been a victim of an unlawful arrrest by store security?

• This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter.  A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.  

In California, a retailer may hire employees to detect, apprehend and arrest suspected shoplifters.  Traditionally, retailers hire "officers" to wear uniforms in order to deter crime and assist in the apprehension and arrest of suspected thieves.  Security "agents" (sometimes referred to as "asset protection agents" or "loss prevention agents") are generally employed to work undercover on the sales floor to detect and apprehend suspected shoplifters.  A statute enacted many years ago (California Penal Code § 490.5) permits the retailer and their agents to stop and detain suspected shoplifters whenever there is probable cause to believe the person stopped has attempted to take or has unlawfully taken merchandise from the store's premises.  This same statute protects the retailer and their agents from civil liability so long as they have acted with probable cause, and the detention was in all other respects reasonable.  This code section is commonly referred to as the "merchant's privilege."

However, it is not terribly uncommon for an overly zealous shoplift agent to apprehend someone without adequate cause or use more than that force necessary to effect the detention.  The law only permits the agent/security officer to use a reasonable amount of non-deadly force to apprehend and detain suspected law breakers.  Once the amount of force crosses this line or the detention is longer than is reasonably necessary, the store and its employees may be held liable for damages.

The damages that can be recovered are often determined by the actions of the store employees.  For example, where physical restraints are used (such as handcuffs) or there is a physical altercation of some sort, the amount of damages awarded is likely increased.  Additionally, if the retailer elects to criminally prosecute the suspected shoplifter (who is in reality innocent), the merchant's privilege does not apply beyond the detention, and damages may be awarded for false arrest and/or malicious prosecution.

Beyond the damages already mentioned, the victim of security misconduct may be able to pursue a claim for a violation of California Civil Code § 52.1 and/or §43, which reads in part as follows:

....every person has, subject to the qualifications and restrictions provided by law, the right of protection from bodily restraint or harm, from personal insult, from defamation, and from injury to his personal relations.

There are a host of civil claims that may be brought to vindicate the rights of those falsely detained or arrested by store security agents and officers.  The laws in California operate to protect the store owners to an extent, but also to ensure the innocent are fairly compensated when their rights have been trampled.

Compensation for the victims of security misconduct should be an important concern for all Californians.  When a security officer or agent acts outside the bounds of the law, they and their employer should be held accountable.  An Orange County trial lawyer with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has more than 19 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Does the California law protecting retailers and their agents, at least in a limited fashion,  seem fair?

• This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter.  A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

According to a KTLA news story, two women have been charged after a video showing their brutal attack on a teenage girl at a Baltimore-area McDonald's restaurant surfaced on the internet last Friday.  Citing the Baltimore Sun, KTLA reported police have charged a 14-year-old girl as a juvenile, and charges are pending for her 18-year-old accomplice.  The attack reportedly occurred on April 18th at the 6300 Kenwood McDonald’s location in Baltimore.  The Sun is also reporting that State’s Attorney Scott D. Shellenberger says the assault may be classified as a hate crime because the attackers were both black, and the victim white. See the KTLA news story and video HERE. In the video, employees of McDonald's are seen half-heartedly intervening during the beating that appears to go on and on.  The attack does not stop until after an elderly woman attempts to stop the assault the victim goes into convulsions.