1.

Walmart Stores
Critical Legal Thinking:
False imprisonment is an act punishable under criminal law as well as under tort law. Under
tort law, it is classified as an international tort. A person commits false imprisonment when
he commits an act of restraint on another person which confines that person in a bounded
area.
 Example: A security guard or store owner who detains someone for an unreasonable
amount of time based on their appearance
Ethics:
Navarro acted irresponsibly in this case because he did not have any evidences to prove that
Cockrell stole the goods and his actions in this case are not reasonable by searching
Cockrell’s body.
Denying liability in this case is an unethically action of Walmart because the Walmart
employee has a mistake in this case so Walmart should apologize to Cockrell and his family
for the mental anguish and trauma. The amount of penalty should be considered as an
apology and responsibility of Walmart.
Contemporary Business:
Shopkeeper's privilege is a law recognized in the United States under which a shopkeeper is
allowed to detain a suspected shoplifter on store property for a reasonable period of time, so
long as the shopkeeper has cause to believe that the person detained in fact committed, or
attempted to commit, theft of store property.
The elements to prove the shopkeeper’s privilege:
1. There are reasonanle grounds for the suspicion.
2. Suspects are detained for only a reasonable time.
3. Investigations are conducted in a reasonanle manner.
Walmart did not have any chances of proving the shopkeeper’s privilege in this case because
there was no evidence to show that Cockrell stealing anything so there was no reasonable
grounds to suspect him at the first instance. Moreover, asking Cockrell to take down the
bandage revealing the wound was unreasonable and unacceptable.
2. Clancy v. Goad
Critical Legal Thinking:
Clancy was not liable for negligence in this case because she appealed, arguing that the
damages were excessive but the damage brought to Dianna was very huge – she was an avid
runner so the legs are important to her but in this case, Clancy appealed the duty of care to
Dianna.
Negligence is a failure to take reasonable care to avoid causing injury or loss to another
person.
Ethics:
It is unethical for Clancy to appeal the damage award in this case because it is irresponsible
for her fault, the damage she brought to Dianna.
Comtemporary Business:
I think $10 million is too less for this damage because losing one leg affects a lot to the work
and salary Dianna can earn a month. Moreover, Dianna also suffered from a fractured pelvic
bones, a fractured left elbow and a lacerated spleen, which had to be removed, taken more
than 6800 pill and a C-leg needs to be replaced every 3-5 years. If I were Clancy, I would
extremely sinful and pay more money for the damage.