Case Brief for Gallegly Wesson V. Wal-Mart Stores

Student’s Name:

Tutor:

Course:

Date:

Case Brief for Gallegly Wesson V. Wal-Mart Stores

Case Title

Kim Gallegly Wesson v. Wal-Mart stores

Procedural History

Gallegly Wesson, the plaintiff sued Wal-Mart stores and the loss prevention associate for Pell City Wal-Mart store Kyle Jack for malicious prosecution and wrongful imprisonment. Mr. Kyle and Wal-Mart stores made a request for a summary judgment that the trial court granted in their favor. Wesson was denied a post judgment application which she thereafter appealed to the Supreme court of Alabama.

Facts

 On July 13, 2004, Gallegly Wesson and her children took their car for service at the Pell City Wal-Mart store. The service charter for the store stated that the service would take 30 minutes or so. Since the car service was not complete within the stipulated time, Wesson and her children diverted to run other errands such as shopping for their food and drugs. After paying for the groceries, Wesson went back to the car only to be confronted for unpaid prescriptions by Mr. Kyle and another store associate Mr. Nichols. Wesson admitted to having not paid for the prescriptions.

Wesson was then directed to the loss prevention office by Jack Kyle where she was given some papers to sign. She was also prohibited from going back to the car and the police were called to put her into custody. Wal-Mart filed a case against Wesson but the case was dismissed by the court due to the terms of the agreement.

Issue

Gallegly Wesson has sued Kyle Jack and Wal-Mart for mischievous prosecution and wrongful imprisonment. Jack and Wal-Mart then requested a summary judgment and Wesson filed an appeal for post judgment that was denied and she then appealed the decision to the Supreme court of Alabama.

Ruling and Reasoning

After reviewing the previous court decision, the Supreme court upheld the decision in favor of Kyle Jack and Wal-Mart for their request for summary judgment since Wesson had failed to prove that Jack and Wal-Mart did not a probable cause to obstruct his prosecution for the theft of prescriptions.