## Facts

- John Joseph Paul, a customer and retired police officer, shopped in an A&P supermarket.
- A store employee suspected Paul of shoplifting a can of tick spray and confronted him in the aisle.
- Viewing the evidence in Paul’s favor, the employee loudly and profanely accused Paul of being a “thief,” forced him to raise his hands, and frisked him.
- The frisk allegedly knocked canned goods to the floor and drew the attention of nearby shoppers who looked on.
- Paul denied stealing or intending to steal and claimed the accusation and detention were unfounded.
- Paul sued A&P (vicariously for its employee) for slander, assault and battery, and false imprisonment.
- A jury found for Paul on all counts and awarded damages; the trial court denied A&P’s post-trial motions.

## Issues

1. Whether there was sufficient evidence of publication of the alleged slander when Paul did not identify a specific third-party listener who personally knew him.
2. Whether calling Paul a “thief” constituted slander per se, eliminating the need to prove special damages.
3. Whether the employee had “legal justification” (legal authority) to detain Paul for suspected shoplifting, defeating false-imprisonment liability.
4. Whether probable cause to suspect shoplifting is a complete defense to false imprisonment or is relevant only to punitive damages.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the judgment for Paul.
- The evidence permitted a jury finding of publication because bystanders could reasonably be inferred to have heard and understood the accusation as referring to Paul.
- Accusing Paul of being a “thief” imputed larceny and was slander per se.
- The employee lacked legal authority to detain Paul under Maryland law; the evidence supported false-imprisonment liability.
- Probable cause was not a defense to false imprisonment, though it could mitigate punitive damages.

## Legal Principles

- Slander requires publication: the defamatory words must be communicated to a third person other than the plaintiff and defendant.
- Publication does not require proof that the listener personally knows the plaintiff; it is sufficient that the listener understands the statement to refer to the plaintiff, and this may be shown circumstantially.
- Words imputing a crime such as larceny (e.g., calling someone a “thief”) are slander per se and do not require proof of special damages.
- False imprisonment consists of a deprivation of liberty without consent and without legal justification; “legal justification” is treated as legal authority.
- In Maryland, a merchant’s suspicion or probable cause alone does not supply legal authority to detain for ordinary shoplifting; detention occurs at the merchant’s risk if the customer is not unlawfully in possession of the merchant’s property.
- Probable cause does not defeat liability for false imprisonment but may be considered in mitigation of punitive damages.

## Conclusion

The court sustained the jury’s verdict for a customer publicly accused and frisked in a supermarket, holding that publication of slander may be proved by circumstances, that calling someone a “thief” is slander per se, and that a merchant’s probable cause does not itself create legal authority to detain and thus does not bar false-imprisonment liability.


Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Paul, 256 Md. 643, 261 A.2d 731 (1970)