## Facts

- Lyndon Silva went to a Dillard store to exchange three shirts he had received as gifts.
- Before making the exchange, Silva purchased three items in the store and had receipts for those purchases.
- A sales associate reported Silva as a possible shoplifter, and store security was contacted.
- Kevin Rivera, an off-duty Houston police officer working security for Dillard, stopped Silva and inspected his shopping bag, which contained both the newly purchased items (with receipts) and the shirts to be exchanged (no receipt in the bag).
- Silva stated he had a receipt and asked Rivera to go to his car to look for it; Rivera instead accused Silva of theft, handcuffed him, and escorted him to an office.
- In the office, Silva claimed store employees taunted him and refused water he requested to take migraine medication.
- Rivera turned Silva over to police; Silva was charged with misdemeanor theft and later acquitted.
- Silva sued Dillard for false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and malicious prosecution.
- A jury found Dillard liable for false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence; it awarded $13,124.01 in actual damages and $50,000 in exemplary damages based on a malice finding, but it rejected malicious prosecution.
- The court of appeals set aside negligence and intentional infliction liability but affirmed actual and exemplary damages on false imprisonment.
- Dillard sought review, asserting the detention was privileged and that evidence was legally insufficient to support malice for exemplary damages.

## Issues

1. Whether legally sufficient evidence supported liability and actual damages for false imprisonment arising from the detention of a suspected shoplifter.
2. Whether legally sufficient evidence supported a finding of statutory “malice,” as required for exemplary damages.

## Decision

- The Texas Supreme Court granted review and issued a per curiam decision.
- The Court affirmed the finding of false imprisonment and the award of actual damages.
- The Court held there was no legally sufficient evidence of statutory malice to support exemplary damages.
- The Court modified the judgment to delete the $50,000 exemplary-damages award and affirmed the judgment as modified.

## Legal Principles

- False imprisonment requires proof that the defendant intentionally confined the plaintiff within fixed boundaries without authority or consent.
- Exemplary damages require clear and convincing evidence of “malice” as defined by statute: (1) a specific intent to cause substantial injury or harm, or (2) conduct creating an extreme degree of risk of substantial harm with subjective awareness and conscious indifference to others’ rights, safety, or welfare.
- Evidence supporting an unreasonable or humiliating detention may sustain compensatory recovery for false imprisonment, but it does not, without more, establish the statutory malice required for exemplary damages.

## Conclusion

The Texas Supreme Court left intact compensatory liability for a customer’s wrongful detention as false imprisonment but eliminated punitive recovery because the record did not provide legally sufficient evidence that the store acted with statutory malice.


Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Silva, 148 S.W.3d 370 (Tex. 2004)