## Facts

- Karl W. Cockrell visited a Wal-Mart store with his parents and left shortly after entering.
- At the front door, Wal-Mart loss-prevention officer Raymond Navarro stopped Cockrell and directed him to the manager’s office.
- In the office, Navarro required Cockrell to pull his pants down and remove or lift clothing during a search conducted in the presence of two employees.
- Cockrell had recently undergone a liver transplant and wore a bandage covering a surgical wound; despite Cockrell’s explanation that the bandage was needed to keep the wound sterile, Navarro insisted Cockrell remove it, exposing the wound.
- No merchandise was found; Navarro apologized and released Cockrell.
- Navarro admitted he did not see Cockrell steal anything and detained him based on “suspicious” behavior and a perceived bulge under Cockrell’s shirt.
- Cockrell and his parents testified that the incident caused severe emotional effects, including withdrawal, reluctance to leave home, and deterioration in family relationships.

## Issues

1. Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that Wal-Mart, through Navarro, falsely imprisoned Cockrell.
2. Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that Wal-Mart committed civil assault during the detention and search.
3. Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the jury’s award of $300,000 for past mental anguish.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the judgment on the jury verdict for Cockrell.
- The evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support false imprisonment because the jury could find a willful, nonconsensual detention not authorized by law.
- The evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support assault because the jury could find offensive contact or an offensive invasion of bodily integrity in the compelled exposure of Cockrell’s wound.
- The evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the $300,000 past mental-anguish award based on testimony showing severe distress and substantial life effects.

## Legal Principles

- False imprisonment requires (1) willful detention, (2) without consent, and (3) without authority of law.
- Detention for false-imprisonment purposes may be shown by words or conduct that restrain a person’s freedom of movement, even without physical force.
- A merchant’s detention of a suspected shoplifter is justified only when supported by reasonable grounds and carried out for a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner; an invasive, humiliating search can exceed any privilege.
- Civil assault is established by intentional or knowing harmful or offensive contact, or conduct causing apprehension of such contact; contact is “offensive” if the actor should reasonably expect it would be regarded as offensive.
- Mental-anguish damages require evidence of a high degree of mental pain and distress, not mere worry or vexation; testimony describing substantial, continuing emotional and behavioral effects can support a significant award.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a verdict holding Wal-Mart liable for false imprisonment and assault after a loss-prevention officer detained a customer without observing theft and conducted a highly intrusive search that compelled exposure of a post-surgical wound in front of others, and it upheld a substantial mental-anguish award based on evidence of severe emotional consequences.


Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Cockrell, 61 S.W.3d 774 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2001)