Bodewig v. K-Mart, Inc.
Oregon Court of Appeals
635 P.2d 657 (1981)
- Written by Sara Rhee, JD
Facts
Linda Bodewig (plaintiff) was a young woman who worked as a part-time checker at K-Mart, Inc. (K-Mart) (defendant). On March 29, 1979, Alice Golden (defendant) entered Bodewig’s checkout lane with several items. Golden briefly left the checkout lane to replace one of her items but left her merchandise at the counter. When she returned, Golden claimed that she had left $20 on top of her merchandise and demanded that Bodewig return the money. The manager of the store, a 32-year-old male, searched Bodewig’s jacket pockets and the surrounding area. Upon Golden’s request, the manager also checked Bodewig’s register, which balanced perfectly. The manager then had Bodewig go to the women’s restroom to disrobe in front of a female assistant manager and Golden. Bodewig complied. The money was not found, but Golden refused to leave and glared at Bodewig while she worked. Upon returning home, Golden counted the money in her purse for the first time and realized she had been mistaken. Bodewig sued K-Mart and Golden, alleging that the defendants had engaged in outrageous conduct. Bodewig claimed that she suffered sleepless nights, cried a lot, and became nervous and upset when she recalled the incident. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Bodewig appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Buttler, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
