Rhodes Vs Detroit Medical Center Summary

Assignment 2

Rhodes v. Detroit Medical Center.

Beryl Rhodes was visiting a patient at the Detroit Medical Center. Rhodes tripped and fell on a cord adjacent to the bed of the patient and sustained injury. The cord ran alongside the patient's bed and went up to the head of the bed. It was not obstructed by any object. The floor was gray and the cord was black, so the cord had sufficient contrast to be visible. The room was well lit, and evidence shows there was adequate lighting for the cord to be visible. The plaintiff, Beryl Rhodes, testified that she had not seen the cord before she fell, but she stated that she saw it after. Rhodes filed a negligence suit against Detroit Medical Center for her injuries. The case was in favor of the plaintiff
The tote is large and conspicuous. She put a container of mousse into the bag and began to walk towards the counter to ask an employee about the product. As she approached the front of the store, she was stopped by the assistant manager who asked her what was in the bag. The assistant manager then detained her and called the police. Holguin refused to sign a no trespassing card issued by the store and authorities. She was then charged with shoplifting and disorderly conduct. Holguin sued Sally Beauty Supply for false imprisonment, false accusation of shoplifting, and false and malicious abuse of prosecution. The case ended in favor of the defendant, Sally Beauty Supply, in the district court and went to the Court of Appeals of New Mexico. Issue The issue in this case is whether or not Holguin placing the product into her tote back warranted the store to detain her. This depends on whether or not Holguin concealing the product by placing it in the tote and walking towards the front of the store was probably cause to believe she was shoplifting. Rule The rule relevant in this situation is the statutory law that any law enforcement or merchant with probable cause to believe that an individual may be shoplifting or has willfully concealed merchandise can detain
Customers have permission to handle, move, try on, and inspect merchandise. Willful concealment is not just merely taking the physical object out of sight. Willful concealment is concealment in a circumstance that shows a purpose opposing the merchant's right to be paid. In order for the plaintiff's act of putting the hair product into the tote to be willful concealment, there needs to be some evidence that she had intent to shoplift the item. There is the claim that putting a product in a bag satisfies the statutory presumption of intent to shoplift, and with this presumption a merchant would have the authority to detain the individual. This would mean that the defendant had the right to detain the defendant. The defendant can not be liable for the arrest of the defendant, which was performed by police officers in response to the resistance of the plaintiff, Holguin. Conclusion While the district court believed that Holguin’s concealment of the merchandise by placing it into her tote was willful concealment and satisfied probable cause that she intended to shoplift, the Court of Appeals disagreed, requiring more evidence of intent than just simply putting the item out of sight. The Court of Appeals of New Mexico reversed the order