## Facts

- Debra McCann shopped at a Wal-Mart in Bangor, Maine with her children Jillian (16) and Jonathan (12) on December 11, 1996.
- As the family attempted to leave after paying, two employees stepped in front of their cart and blocked their path toward the exit; one may have placed a hand on the cart.
- The employees accused the children of prior shoplifting and told Debra that the children were not allowed in the store, but the employees had mistaken them for a different family.
- Debra protested and attempted to show identification, but an employee refused to look at it.
- The employees stated they had “records,” said the police were being called, and told Debra the family “had to go with” an employee; Debra testified she complied because she believed she was required to and that police were coming.
- The family was escorted past the registers to an area near the exit and kept there while one employee stood near them and another went to make a call.
- When Jonathan asked to use the bathroom, an employee told him he could not; he cried and denied stealing.
- The employees did not call police; they summoned a store security officer who recognized that the family had been misidentified.
- After the mistake was acknowledged, the McCanns were allowed to leave; the detention lasted about an hour.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence permitted a finding of intentional confinement for false imprisonment under Maine law where restraint was primarily by blocking, threats, and asserted authority rather than physical force or locked doors.
2. Whether the jury instructions correctly stated Maine law on confinement, including confinement by threats of force or asserted legal authority.
3. Whether the evidence supported submitting punitive damages to the jury under Maine’s requirement of malice or conduct so outrageous that malice may be implied.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment for plaintiffs on false imprisonment.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find intentional confinement within a bounded area for an appreciable time, even without physical seizure or locked exits.
- The court upheld the false-imprisonment instructions as consistent with Maine law and the Restatement view that threats or asserted legal authority can effect confinement.
- The court affirmed the refusal to submit punitive damages, concluding the conduct, though wrongful, did not meet Maine’s malice/outrageousness standard.

## Legal Principles

- False imprisonment under Maine law occurs when a person intentionally confines another, without lawful privilege and against consent, within a limited area for any appreciable time.
- Confinement need not be accomplished by physical restraint; it can be effected by physical obstruction, threats of force, or an improper assertion of legal authority.
- The confinement inquiry includes whether the circumstances would cause a reasonable person to believe they were not free to leave, including when authority is invoked through claims of “records” and imminent police involvement.
- Punitive damages under Maine law require actual malice or conduct so outrageous that malice may be implied; mistaken identification and high-handed behavior, without more, is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court sustained liability for false imprisonment because a jury could find that Wal-Mart employees intentionally confined the customers by blocking their exit and invoking police authority in a manner that would make a reasonable person feel compelled to stay, but it denied punitive damages because the conduct did not satisfy Maine’s stringent malice or outrageousness requirement.


McCann v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 210 F.3d 51 (1st Cir. 2000)