Edit Case Brief: Bonkowski v. Arlan’s Dep’t Store

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

Case Summary

Court:
Citation:
Date decided:
Primary subject:
Additional subjects:
Appealed from:
Input case treatment

Cases that this case overturned:
Cases that this case partially overturned:
Cases that this case reaffirmed:
Cases that this case questioned:
Cases that this case criticized:
Cases that this case distinguished:
Cases that this case cited:
Cases that this case followed:
Related Cases:

Facts	The plaintiff made several purchases at the defendant’s department store and proceeded to leave. A private policeman working for the defendant asked her to stop as she was waking to her car and motioned for her to return to the store. When she had returned he said that someone had told him that she had put three pieces of jewelry into her purse, which she denied. He told her he wanted to see the contents of her purse, to which she consented. After finding that she had not stolen anything, the policeman returned to the store. Plaintiff complains that as a result of defendant’s tortuous acts she has suffered numerous psychosomatic symptoms, including headaches, nervousness, and depression.
Procedural History	Plaintiff issued an action for false arrest and slander. Jury verdict for the plaintiff and an appeal by the defendant. The defendant’s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, remittitur, and new trial were denied by the court.
Issues	Whether privilege exists in favor of a merchant to detain for reasonable investigation a person whom he reasonably believes to have unlawfully taken goods from his store.
Arguments
Holding	Reversed and remanded for new trial, for the jury to determine whether or not the defendant’s agent reasonably believed the plaintiff had unlawfully taken any goods at the defendant’s store, and if so, whether the investigation that followed was reasonable under the circumstances.
Judgment
Reasons	Privilege is necessary for the protection of a shopkeeper, even after the person has left the premises because a merchant may not be able to form the reasonable belief justifying a detention for a reasonable investigation before the suspected person has left the premises.
Rule
Comments

Case Text Links

Add a link

Case Opinions

The following section is to enter opinion authorship for each opinion part (concurrences, dissents, etc.).

Opinion Parts

Add an opinion part

Free text:

Summary:

This is a minor edit

Watch this page

Cancel

Anonymous

Search

Edit Case Brief: Bonkowski v. Arlan’s Dep’t Store

Namespaces

More

Page actions

Case Summary

Case Opinions

Navigation

Navigation

Follow Wiki Law School

Share this page

Wiki tools

Wiki tools

Anonymous

Search

Edit Case Brief: Bonkowski v. Arlan’s Dep’t Store

Case Summary

Case Opinions

Navigation

Wiki tools

Page tools