Shopkeeper's privilege and trade libel in retail detention cases

¶ … trade libel is fair to business owners. Argue both sides of the issue.

From the general public's viewpoint, the definition of trade liable is accurate. This is because the store detained someone they accused of shoplifting. To determine where the stolen item was hiding; they effectively conducted a strip search by revealing private areas. At one point, Cockrell (the plaintiff) had to remove a bandage that was use to cover a recent scar from a liver transplant. He asked security not to remove it and they insisted. This is a clear violation, as the security at Wal Mart has no right to conduct these activities. Instead, they should have detained the person and contacted the police. (Statsky, 2011)

Wal Mart will argue that shoplifting is a major problem and they were following proper procedures. This occurs by bring the subject into an isolated area and checking them. After they have been cleared, is when the person is free to go. In this case, they will argue that the shopkeeper's privilege gives them the right to conduct these activities. Under the law, merchants can detain someone for a reasonable period to determine if any wrongdoing was committed. This is because they believed that a crime was occurring which could have resulted in substantial losses to the company. If they did not act quickly, there is a possibility that the perpetrator may have escaped. To prevent this, the security will take aggressive actions to protect the company. Wal Mart is citing how this approach has been utilized across the country and no one is complaining about their practices (other than Cockrell). In this aspect, Wal Mart will argue that they did nothing wrong by checking areas inside his clothing where he could hide stolen items. This is standard operating procedure for dealing with shoplifters using the shopkeeper's privilege. (Statsky, 2011)

Brief Paper 2

Assume your readers know the facts of the case and are only seeking your opinions on whether or not the definition of trade libel is fair to business owners. Argue both sides of the issue.

The case involving Lucky Cheng's v. Zaga Survey, Inc. is showing how there are two different interpretations of liable. In this case, the Zaga Survey rated Lucky Cheng's as a good restaurant with an outstanding atmosphere. Commenting about it they said, "God known you don't go for the food at this East Village Asian Eclectic." Lucky Cheng's sued the company claiming that this is a libelous statement. (Cheesman, 2009)

The Zaga Survey argued that this is an expression of their opinion and was not intended to damage Lucky Cheng's in any way. They will cite how these views are routinely expressed at different points in time to readers. Second, they claim how under the law there is no clear evidence they engaged in these activities. This is because the plaintiff has to prove that several events occurred to successfully make a claim. The most notable include: 1) making untrue statements, 2) publishing untrue statements to third parties, 3) knowing the statement was not true and 4) the statement was made with the intention of inflicting harm. These standards were never proven, as the Zaga Survey is simply expressing opinions about their experiences. This is something which occurs regularly as a part of their business in publishing restaurant reviews. (Cheesman, 2009)

Lucky Cheng's will argue that the Zaga Survey did this intentionally. This is because they knew that the organization could hide behind these standards and make disparaging claims about the firm. These issues are troubling, as some customers will be turned off by this statement and stop visiting the restaurant. To prevent this, they are asking the courts to re interpret the law based upon the statements that were made. They feel that this will clearly demonstrate that Zaga intentionally wanted to harm the organization and then use the cumbersome standards of liable to hide behind. (Cheesman, 2009)

Briefing Paper 4

Assume your readers know the facts of the case and are only seeking your opinions on the three questions found at the end of Section 6.10. Argue both sides of all three questions

What are the elements to prove negligence?

To prove negligence there are several different standards which must be followed to include:

The existence of duty of owed.

An applicable standard of care.

A connection between the incident and the injury.

Intent to injure the person.

If any plaintiff can meet these guidelines, they can sue for damages under the law.

Evidence of this can be seen with insights from McHugh (2011) who said, "A claim in negligence is based on the assumption that the provider owes a duty of care to all those who can reasonably be expected to make use of its product. In the case of 'dangerous' products such as those which, if defective, could cause extensive harm this duty may be owed to anybody who may reasonably be affected by a defect in the product. This means that a claim in negligence is not limited by the doctrine of privity of contract, which states that only a party to a contract can sue under it. A claim may be brought by a consumer-purchaser of the product, a person who uses the product or a third party bystander who is injured by the product." (McHugh, 2011) These insights are showing how the RHO General could be held liable for negligence. In the event an individual is injured, they could sue and seek out monetary damages for violating these basic provisions.

Did RKO General Inc. act responsibly in the case? Why or why not.

RKO General did not act responsibly in the case. This is because they never had any kind of disclaimers asking listener to use caution and common sense. This is what directly led to the accident with two listens tracking their DJ on the freeway. The result is that an innocent man lost his life from them forcing him to rollover in the center median. They did not stop or have any kind of remorse for these actions. Using the standards of negligence, one could argue that RKO encouraged this kind of behavior both directly and indirectly. (Cheesman, 2009)

Who wins and why?

The family of the man who died is the winners. This is because they can show that the different standards for negligence were violated by the radio station. These actions encouraged listeners to engage in reckless behavior which lead to the death of innocent man. If they had not done this promotion, none of these events would have occurred. (Cheesman, 2009)