## Facts

- Gerald Grant entered a convenience store operated by Stop-N-Go Market of Texas, Inc., after previously purchasing beer, and sought to buy chips.
- The store manager suspected Grant of stealing cigarettes and accused him of theft.
- Grant presented evidence that the manager told him he could not leave until police arrived; Grant remained because he feared consequences if he left.
- The manager denied telling Grant to stay and denied physically restraining him.
- Grant alleged the manager made theft accusations in the presence of others, forming the basis for defamation.
- Police arrived and took Grant into custody for investigatory purposes; he was detained but not arrested.
- A surveillance video reportedly existed but was unavailable during litigation, leaving the parties’ accounts largely in conflict.

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment was proper on false imprisonment where the evidence conflicted on whether Grant was willfully detained without consent and without legal authority, including by threat rather than physical restraint.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper on defamation where the evidence conflicted on what theft accusations were made, whether they were published to third parties, and whether any privilege or lack of malice was established as a matter of law.
3. Whether Stop-N-Go conclusively established a shopkeeper’s privilege defense, including reasonableness of suspicion and the manner and duration of any detention, and whether that privilege barred defamation liability.

## Decision

- The court reversed the trial court’s summary judgment for Stop-N-Go on both false imprisonment and defamation.
- The court remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that material fact disputes existed on whether Grant was detained by threat and whether he consented to remain.
- The court held that material fact disputes existed on the alleged defamatory statements, including their content, publication, and any showing of malice or privilege.
- The court rejected the argument that lack of physical restraint alone defeated false imprisonment as a matter of law.
- The court concluded Stop-N-Go did not conclusively prove shopkeeper’s privilege on this record, and any detention privilege did not automatically bar defamation claims.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is proper only if the movant shows no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law; a defendant-movant must conclusively negate at least one element of each claim or establish an affirmative defense as a matter of law.
- False imprisonment consists of willful detention without consent and without authority of law.
- Detention for false imprisonment can occur by threat as well as by physical restraint; physical restraint is not required.
- A merchant’s shopkeeper’s privilege to detain suspected shoplifters is limited to detentions based on reasonable suspicion and conducted in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time; application commonly turns on fact questions.
- Accusing a person of theft can constitute defamation (including defamation per se), and a detention-related privilege does not automatically immunize defamatory statements; privilege and malice may present fact issues.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that conflicting evidence about whether the manager detained Grant by threat and publicly accused him of theft created triable issues on false imprisonment and defamation, and that Stop-N-Go failed to establish shopkeeper’s privilege or other defenses as a matter of law; summary judgment was therefore reversed and the case remanded.


Grant v. Stop-N-Go Mkt. of Tex., Inc., 994 S.W.2d 867 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999)