Case Brief Wal-Mart Stores Vs Cockrell

Walmart Stores v. Cockrell

Fact: In November 1996, Appellee Karl Cockrell and his parents worked at Wal-Mart stores in Texas. When Karl left the store, Raymond Navarro, a Wal-Mart a loss-prevention officer, took him into custody. In his office, Navarro and two other Wal-Mart employees asked Cockrell to remove his pants. Cockrell complied, and did not reveal the stolen goods. Then Navarro asked Cockrell to take off his shirt, but he had a large bandage strapped to his abdomen. Cockrell explained to Navarro that the bandage was designed to protect the sterile area after the operation, but Navarro insisted that Cockrell remove the bandage. Cockrell acquiesced. When no contraband was found, Navarro released Cockrell. Cockrell then sued Wal-Mart

In this case, does Wal-Mart morally deny responsibility?

Rule: According to Cheeseman (2015, p.87), “Almost all states have enacted merchant protection statues, also known as the shopkeeper’s privilege. These statutes allow merchants to stop, detain, and investigate suspected shoplifter without held liable for false imprisonment if:
1. There are reasonable grounds for the suspicion.
2. Suspects are detained for only a reasonable time.
3. Investigations are conducted in a reasonable manner.

Analysis: There are no reasonable grounds for doubt. Navarro's conclusion is purely based on observations of Karl Cockrell. He should first surveillance video by observing the Cockrell. When deciding whether to survey and investigation is not in a reasonable manner, because Navarro is deprived of the identity of the man, and asked him to remove abdominal bandage, in the case of the removed the bandage, is must require a medical staff was present. Wal-Mart does not comply with the requirements of the merchant protection statute.

Conclusion: Navarro did not take responsible action because there was no logical reason。In fact, Wal-Mart’s behavior has not been met because of its unethical behavior.