De Anza College Bennett vs Stanley Case Study Analysis

Bennett vs. Stanley

Write a few sentences on each of the following:

IRAC = Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion

1. Issue. What’s the primary legal issue in this case?

2. Rule. What’s the general rule of law that applies to this type of case, i.e., beforethis case is decided, what’s the background general rule?

3. Analysis. How did the court analyze this case (what were the key principles or facts that the court focused on)?

4. Conclusion (the court’s and yours). What was the court’s conclusion on the primary issue? Did the court get it right or get it wrong, and why?

1
Walmart v. Cockrell
Name
Course
Tutor
Date
2
Walmart v. Cockrell
Issue
The primary legal issue, in this case, is whether Wal-Mart Stores, Inc, the defendant, and
the appellant falsely imprisoned, assaulted, and caused mental anguish to the plaintiff and
appellee Karl W. Cockrell.
Rule
Before this case is decided by the court, the general rule of law that applies to this type of
case is that for false imprisonment to exist, there has to be willful detention by the defendant that
is performed without consent and without the authority of the law (Legal Information Institute,
n.d). The plaintiff has to prove that there was no legal authority when the imprisonment
happened for a cause of action for false imprisonment to be initiated. The general rule about
assault is that a person commits assault “if he intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact
with another when he knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact
as offensive or provocative.” The general rule concerning mental anguish as established in
Parkway Co. v. Woodruff is that damages for mental anguish can be awarded if the plaintiff
presents evidence of a “high degree of mental pain and distress” that is “more than mere worry,
anxiety, vexation, embarrassment, or anger.”
Analysis
The court established that Cockrell was willfully detained without his consent as
established by Cockrell’s statement and the statement by the loss prevention officer, Navarro
who stated that he held Cockrell in his custody and it was his decision concerning when he
would get to leave. The court established that reasonable justification to hold a person for a
reasonable time to investigate property ownership is a legal justification for the detention.
3
However, in this case, Navaro lacked legal justification to hold Cockrell because he only stated
that Cockrell was acting suspiciously and there was a bulge under his shirt and no one in the
store saw him steal something. The court established that the search by Navarro was
unreasonable because he lacked probable cause that Cockrell had stolen something.
About the charge of assault, Cockrell argued that as he was walking out through the front
doors, Navarro put his hands on his back and shoulder and twisted him around. The court
established that Navarro should have reasonably believed that Cockrell would consider his
actions as offensive hence the court found the actions of Walmart against Cockrell to be an
assault. The court also established that mental anguish only exists when there is evidence of a
“high degree of mental pain and distress” that is “more than mere worry, anxiety, vexation,
embarrassment, or anger, ” which was evident in the testimonies given by the various witnesses
concerning the state in which Cockrell was after he was released by Walmart. The description
given by Cockrell about how he felt after he was let go, and the description by his parents about
how he looked as he walked out after being let go presented sufficient evidence of the mental
anguish that he suffered hence he was awarded the damages for the mental anguish he suffered.
Conclusion
The conclusion of the court on the primary issue was that Walmart had assaulted and
falsely imprisoned Cockrell as established from the evidence presented against them, providing
proof of the existence of all the elements of false imprisonment and assault, and the mental
anguish suffered as a result. The court got it right because there were numerous pieces of
evidence indicating that the actions of the loss prevention officer in terms of how he handled
Cockrell amounted to an assault and would be seen as such by any reasonable person. The false
imprisonment was also established in the nature of the detention and the mental anguish was in
4
how he was feeling and started acting after he was let go. My conclusion is that the court was
right in its decision on the issue of false imprisonment and assault. However, I think that while
the evidence from the testimony given by Cockrell and his parents was compelling to show that
he suffered mental anguish, expert evidence from a qualified mental health practitioner would
have been instrumental in establishing the level of mental anguish that was suffered by Cockrell.
This would have added more strength to the claims being made by the witnesses concerning the
mental anguish.
5
References
Legal Information Institute (n.d). False imprisonment.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/false_imprisonment
Parkway Co. v. Woodruff, 901 S.W.2d 434, 444 (Tex.1995)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Cockrell, 61 S.W.3d 774 (Tex. App. 2001).
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of-appeals/1337571.html