Thomas v. E.J. Korvette, Inc.

329 F. Supp. 1163 (1971)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Thomas v. E.J. Korvette, Inc.

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
329 F. Supp. 1163 (1971)

Facts

Lawrence B. Thomas (plaintiff) worked as a police officer for 15 years with a distinguished record before becoming the security manager of a department store owned by E. J. Korvette, Inc. (Korvette) (defendant). Thomas planned to purchase a game from the store for his child’s birthday. Thomas went to the toy department, selected a game, and was walking to the cash register to purchase the game when he noticed a person who he suspected was a shoplifter. Thomas, still carrying the game, followed the suspected shoplifter until the person left the store. Thomas’s car was parked nearby, so he put the game in his trunk, planning to pay later. Thomas later returned to the toy department, chose another toy, and paid for the game as well as the second toy. Thomas put the second item and receipt in his trunk as well. The store’s assistant manager, Mr. Brown, saw Thomas put the game in his trunk and believed that Thomas had stolen it. When store management confronted Thomas, he could not find the receipt for the toys, but the cashier corroborated Thomas’s statement that he had paid for both items. Nonetheless, the store management called the police, and Thomas was arrested. Thomas later found the receipt in his trunk. At his preliminary hearing a few days later, the justice of the peace dismissed the charges against Thomas but ordered him to pay costs. Following his arrest, Thomas had trouble finding work, and prospective employers reported that Korvette called Thomas a thief. Thomas could not get a job in security and had to take a job as a cosmetics salesperson. While working as a cosmetics salesperson, he went to a Korvette store and was asked to leave as a security risk. Thomas sued Korvette for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and defamation of character. Thomas presented evidence of actual damages of $1,675, including $65 for a bail bond, $350 in attorney’s fees, $310 for an employment-agency fee, and $950 for lost wages. Thomas also claimed loss of future earning capacity because he could not find work in security. Although Thomas earned more as a cosmetics salesperson than he had at Korvette, most security professionals made $600 per year more than Thomas did as a cosmetics salesperson, and Thomas preferred security work. The jury found Korvette liable and awarded Thomas $250,000 in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages. Korvette moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Fullam, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership