Gustafson v. Payless Drug Stores Northwest, Inc.
Oregon Supreme Court
525 P.2d 118, 269 Or. 354 (1974)
- Written by Sarah Hoffman, JD
Facts
Albertina Gustafson (plaintiff) was arrested for shoplifting at Payless Drug Stores Northwest, Inc. (Payless) (defendant). At trial, Gustafson testified that while shopping with her mother-in-law, Gustafson picked up a carton of cigarettes that she carried openly. At the checkout counter, Gustafson was told she had to pay for the cigarettes at a different cash register in the store. As Gustafson attempted to find the register, she became distracted by a discussion with her mother-in-law, then realized it was time to meet Gustafson’s husband in the parking lot, left the store without passing any cash registers, and waited outside for about five minutes. When her husband arrived, Gustafson placed the other purchases and the carton of cigarettes openly in the back of the truck. Payless security officer Mrs. Yaw approached and told Gustafson that she had forgotten to pay for an item. Gustafson apologized profusely and returned to the store. Yaw called the police. At trial, Yaw testified that Gustafson was not apologetic when confronted and that Gustafson walked around checkout lanes when leaving the store. Gustafson was acquitted of the shoplifting charge and sued Payless for malicious prosecution. Payless filed a motion for a directed verdict, arguing that Yaw had probable cause. The court denied the motion, and the jury awarded damages to Gustafson. Payless appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Denecke, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 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.