## Facts

- Lawrence B. Thomas, a former police officer, worked for E.J. Korvette, Inc. as a security officer and was promoted to security manager at its King of Prussia store.
- On November 12, 1965, Thomas obtained a toy game from the toy department for his child and walked toward the register intending to pay.
- Thomas saw a woman previously identified to him as a suspected shoplifter, followed her, and placed the toy in his car trunk near the store entrance for convenience while continuing his duties.
- Thomas later returned to the toy department, told the cashier about the earlier game, and paid for both the earlier toy and an additional item in a single transaction.
- Korvette caused Thomas to be arrested and prosecuted for larceny by employee.
- The criminal charge was dismissed at a Justice of the Peace hearing.
- Thomas sued Korvette for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and defamation based on accusations that he stole from the store.
- In a bifurcated jury trial, the jury found lack of probable cause, malice, and that defamatory statements were made; it awarded $250,000 compensatory and $500,000 punitive damages.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence permitted the jury to find Korvette liable for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and defamation, including findings of lack of probable cause and malice.
2. Whether the jury’s total damages award ($750,000) was so excessive as to require judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a new trial, or reduction.
3. Whether punitive damages were legally permissible on the record and, if so, whether the amount was improper under governing standards.

## Decision

- The court denied Korvette’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury’s liability determinations.
- The court denied a new trial on liability, deferring to the jury’s resolution of disputed facts on probable cause, intent, malice, and publication.
- The court sustained the gist of the verdict but closely reviewed the size of the compensatory and punitive awards for excessiveness and addressed the final judgment through post-trial adjustment procedures rather than overturning liability.

## Legal Principles

- A judgment notwithstanding the verdict is improper where, viewing the evidence favorably to the verdict winner, a reasonable jury could find for that party on the challenged elements.
- Under Pennsylvania law, malicious prosecution requires proof that the defendant instituted proceedings without probable cause, with malice, and that the proceedings terminated in the plaintiff’s favor.
- False arrest/false imprisonment liability may arise when an arrest or detention is procured without legal justification or probable cause.
- Accusing a person of theft or dishonesty in employment constitutes defamation per se, supporting general damages for reputational harm without proof of special damages.
- Punitive damages may be awarded where conduct reflects an evil motive or reckless indifference; a court may disturb an award only if it is so excessive as to indicate passion, prejudice, or a conscience-shocking result.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the jury’s findings that Korvette initiated criminal process and made defamatory theft accusations against its security manager without probable cause and with malice, and it refused to set aside liability while subjecting the unusually large compensatory and punitive awards to strict post-trial review for excessiveness.


Thomas v. E.J. Korvette, Inc., 329 F. Supp. 1163 (E.D. Pa. 1971)