Keefe v Gimbel's (1984)
I found this case and took some excerpts. Everybody has said, my RE-action to their negligence was wrong. THEY were the ones who failed, and still do fail, to deactivate the sensors. Most everyone who has gotten upset with me has shared stories of seeing this happen. Obviously, $75,000 was not sufficient deterrent if it occurs still EVERYWHERE. "He who casts the first stone..." I didn't make a mistake first, they did.
In the case “Keefe v. Gimbel’s (478 N.Y.S.2d 745), the appellate court heard cross appeals in a case where a woman was stopped by security personal because “a large white plastic sensomatic device had been left on one of the coats by the defendant's employee at the time of her purchase,” and “When she attempted to leave the store, she testified that red lights began to flash and a "bell like a fire engine" went off, that a red-jacketed man "grabbed her by the arm"; that another "tore the boxes out of her hand" and loudly commanded she accompany them… that a large crowd gathered, some of whom she knew….” The jury awarded $100,000 for damages and $500,000 for exemplary damages. It was further found that, “Her earlier physical problems were exacerbated by the within occurrence…”
There was testimony by the chief security officer that, “similar erroneous "stops" happen 20 times a day (and the "door monitor" estimated 100 erroneous "stops" a week).”
“Clearly the jury found and decided that the admitted negligence of defendant was misconduct which transgressed mere ordinary negligence and constituted a reckless, willful and wanton disregard of both the rights of the plaintiff, to whom it happened twice within a space of an hour, and the public to whom a mistaken "stop" occurs 20 times a day. The defendant was and is duty-bound to take appropriate measures to stop the mishandling of customers who unwarily come onto defendant's premises, expecting a pleasant shopping trip but who experience something quite traumatic at least 100 times a week.”
They court queried: “Should a legitimate consumer have to assume a risk because there are others on the premises who may be a detriment to the vendor's business? Must they assume the risk now of being stopped, being physically "pushed around" to the accompaniment of bells and flashing lights, detention and possible arrest simply because the store and its employees are mindful only of the store's own interests? The law has long required a property owner, a storekeeper, etc., to keep the physical premises in a reasonably safe condition without hidden "traps." Is this any less a trap? Should a lesser degree of care be required, when it is within the total control of the financially benefitted defendant, to prevent harm of this kind to the consumer? It is inconceivable that the Legislature enacted GBL 217 and 218 to confer a "sword" into the hands of negligent mercantile establishments, and it is significant that while the GBL enumerates the types of actions in which the defense may be raised, it does not include actions for negligence and/or gross negligence. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius!"
"The court determines that punitive damages in the sum of $75,000 will serve as a sufficient deterrent to prevent repetition by the within defendant and others similarly situated, and will encourage better training and supervision of employees and the hiring of more employees, if necessary, to accord innocent shoppers the care and courtesy **751 they are entitled to. It may also motivate the introduction of a better system that will not entrap the innocent consumer.”
