Case Comparison It is an arduous task to predict the way a court may rule in a particular case, however, with past

precedents the predictability of a decisions may be staged. In

determining if the precedent of an old case is applicable to the new case, details are essential in determining their similarities or difference. The outcome of the cases of enny of

Debbie Jackson v. Kmart Corporation and Crowe v. J.C may set the stage for the decision for the case

Toughguy. These past precedents may predict the way the court will rule in Toughguy. !oth cases involved plaintiffs who were employees at different companies and were accused of shoplifting and theft. issues of intentional The court in Crowe dealt with emotional distress, false

imprisonment and sick pay. issues that are involved in

These issues are similar to T"ughguy, making these two

cases analogous to each other. #owever, the case, Debbie Jackson v. Kmart Corp is distinguishable to Toughguy. In Jackson, discharge, The the issues that were involved and false were wrongful

malicious was

prosecution suspected of

imprisonment. with a

plaintiff

being

involved

customer in a stealing scam. $hen %uestioned by the store

manager, racial and se&ual remarks were made. The situation in Jackson is different than in Toughguy. Toughguy involved a customer who and was was suspected %uestioned. of attempting the to steal of

merchandise

Comparing

facts

Toughguy and Jackson v. Kmart Corporation the two cases are different, thus are distinguishable. enny is analogous to the there issues are of different Crowe is

The case of Crowe v. J.C case involving the Toughguy.

'lthough, the

facts,

situation

and

significantly similar to Toughguy. In both cases there was an anonymous phone call that made the employees suspicious of shoplifting activities. In Crowe, the employee admitted that she had mishandled the merchandise, while in Toughguy, customer who was suspected of stealing maintained his

innocence. !oth plaintiffs were interviewed, however, only Caruso(the customer) in Toughguy asked the interview to be sei*ed. In Crowe v. J.C involved, false enny, there were three main issues intentional emotional

imprisonment,

distress and sick pay. Two issues are applicable to the present case+ intentional emotional distress and false

imprisonment. Crowe claimed that emotional distress was caused by the guards, who ,treated her offensively, calling her a liar, yelling and slamming at the table(citation).

.eorgia law states that Intentional /motional distress can only be recovered when the defendant0s actions were ,so terrifying or insulting1 as naturally to humiliate,

embarrass the plaintiff.- 'lthough the court in Crowe found that the manager had not e&ceeded the limits put on by society, the scenario in Toughguy however is more severe. 2ot only was offensive language used towards the plaintiff, a customer, but he was accused of lying and was held for about 3.4 hours to be %uestioned. may be Thus the issue to of the

intentional

emotional

distress

applicable

case of T"ughguy. The issue of false imprisonment arises when a merchant is given authority to %uestion and detain someone, if there is probable cause that theft has occurred. 5imilar to

Crowe, Crausor consented in being %uestioned and was held in a room for 3.4 hours. In Crowe, however, the employee had preferred to continue with the interview and clear up the matter. There was no theft only a suspicion that an attempt admitted theft that may she have had occurred. mishandled The employee goods in Crowe in

the

while

Toughguy he had maintained his innocence. Thus, in Crowe the court did agree with the plaintiff0s claim about being falsely imprisoned. The case with Toughguy is similarly

situated to Crowe v. JC. enny, thus making the two cases are analogous. The Corporation and issues Toughguy of are Debbie Jackson in v. Kmart

different

many

aspects.

Debbie Jackson v. Kmart Corporations, the court dealt with issues false of wrongful discharge, 6alicious malicious prosecution is when and a

imprisonment.

prosecution

criminal prosecution is carried out maliciously and without any probable cause, causing damages to the person accused. In Jackson, the court granted a motion of summary 7udgment. Jackson0s situation arose when Debbie Jackson was accused of being involved in a theft scheme and was confronted by her manager who made racial and se&ual comments towards her. #owever, in the case with Toughguy, although there was offensive language used, there were no racial or se&ual remarks. Therefore, the issue of malicious prosecution is not present in the case with Toughguy. In Debbie v. Jackson, the shopping cart with the stolen merchandise was approached after the purchase while in

Toughguy, the security guard approached the Caruso prior to the purchase, when Caruso claimed that he was only trying to retrieve a cart to put the merchandise in located inside the store. In Debbie v. Jackson, the court denied

Jackson0s claim of false imprisonment. Debbie Jackson was

%uestioned in the back by the store manager who not only made racial and se&ual comments towards her, but would not let her out until she told the truth and refused to let her call her husband. 5imilar to Jackson, Caruso was held

until he told the truth and he was not allowed to call his wife. In Jackson, the theft was observed, while in

Toughguy, there was a suspicion that Caruso was attempting to steal the merchandise. Toughguy0s is situated different because the merchant0s did not have a reasonable cause to suspect Caruso of theft, because he was inside the store while the situation of Jackson took place outside of the store. Therefore, the issue of false imprisonment is

present in Toughguy and the issue of malicious prosecution is not applicable. Thus, the two cases Toughguy and Jackson are distinguishable. ( ok so I don0t like this end

paragraph either, will be fi&ing it)