Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Gail Smith, a Nordstrom security officer, observed five individuals shoplifting. Seattle police officers were called. The suspects were questioned by Smith and the police officers and then arrested. Two of the suspects were identified as Lisa Banks (P) and her father, John Banks. In actuality, the individuals arrested were Sharon Banks, P's older sister, and Sharon's boyfriend. Sharon was carrying P's driver's license. The suspects were taken to the police station, booked, and released. D's civil claims manager, sent a letter to P demanding civil restitution totaling $889.70. This letter was P's first notice of the shoplifting incident. At about this time, P also received a notice from the prosecuting attorney's office that she had been charged with first-degree theft and was scheduled to be arraigned on January 11, 1988. P immediately telephoned Gail Smith and informed her of the error. At Smith's request, P and her father went to the Nordstrom store later the same day. Smith confirmed that P and John Banks were not the individuals arrested on December 26, 1987, and gave P a handwritten note on Nordstrom stationery, dated January 6, 1988, stating that P was not the same woman who was arrested on December 26. P states that Smith also told her that she would get the charges dismissed. Smith maintains that she called a 'Detective Corbett' of the Seattle Police Department and told him that P was not the woman arrested on December 26, 1987. P also contacted the prosecutor's office and was informed that the charges against her were still pending and that if she did not appear at the arraignment, a bench warrant for her arrest would be issued and she could go to jail. P retained counsel, who also was unable to contact either Smith but who received a telephone call on January 21, 1988, from Mike Wargin, Nordstrom's security manager, who stated that 'all efforts will be made to prevent a false arrest,' but that he had not yet contacted Smith or the prosecutor. D sent a notarized statement by messenger to the prosecutor on January 22, 1988, indicating that P and John Banks were not the shoplifting suspects. Based upon the affidavit, the charges against P were dismissed just prior to the omnibus hearing. P sued for malicious prosecution, outrage, invasion of privacy, negligent hiring and supervision, and violations of the Consumer Protection Act. The trial court granted D's motion for summary judgment dismissing the action. P appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co