Essay on "Ms Jane v. Mr. Stubbornman"

Essay 5 pages (1971 words) Sources: 1+

[EXCERPT] . . . .

Ms Jane v. Mr. Stubbornman. Ms Jane was a customer in the Tel-Mart store shopping with her eight-year-old infant son. Mr. Stubbornman, a security guard in the store, suspected that Ms Jane was shoplifting and therefore detained her in the rear room of the store. He kept Ms Jane there for three hours and realized that he had made a mistake. During the time of detainment, Mr. Stubbornman violated the Florida jurisdiction by refusing to allow Ms Jane to breastfeed her infant. Ms Jane hired a lawyer, Mr. Youknow, who, this paper argues, should bring a case of malicious prosecution against the security guard and the store and demand compensation to pay for the medical treatment of Ms Jane and her baby as well as the moral damage inflicted upon them.

Mary Jane v. Mr. Stubbornman

The case involving Mary Jane and her eight-month-old infant son against Mr. Stubbornman, an off duty police officer as a security guard at Tel-Mart store, is a complicated one. It raises issues regarding the authority and responsibilities of security guards, the consumer rights, the ethics of detaining breastfeeding mothers for a prolonged time, and the right of mothers to breastfeed their infants when they are in need. Mr. Stubbornman had a justification for inspecting shoppers who were suspect, but in the opinion of this author, he abused his power and violated the law by refusing Ms Jane to breastfeed her infant. Even if Mr. Stubborn had a reasonable ground for detaining Ms Jane, he had no right to deny the infant the right to get nourishment he needed. By denying Ms Jane to breastfeed her infant during detention, Mr. Stubbornman violated the Florida state law, which affirms the breastfeeding mothers' right to feed their babies at any place, public or private, as long as they are authorized to be in that place. Ms Jane deserves compensation for the psychological damage inflicted upon her and her eight-month-old son.

Mr. Stubborn is a security guard and it is his responsibility to provide security to the Tel-Mart store and he is authorized to use power, as affirmed by the Federal and Florida state laws, to protect the property of the Tel-Mart store. But Mr. Stubborn is also an off duty police officer, which means that as a security guard he cannot act like a police officer. If he really believed that Ms Jane was secreting some items in the baby's bag, he had a reasonable ground for viewing her as a suspect and make sure that no items were stolen. But Mr. Stubborn did not have the power to detain Ms Jane and her infant son for three hours since at the time he could not act as a police officer. It was his responsibility to refer the case to the police if he believed that there was probably cause for detaining Ms Jane for a prolonged time in the rear room of the store.

Once in the room, Mr. Stubbornman abused his power by detaining a breastfeeding mother for a prolonged time and violated the West's Florida Statute, which says that a mother "may breastfeed her baby in any location, public or private, where the mother is otherwise authorized to be, irrespective of whether the nipple of the mother's breast is uncovered during or incidental to the breastfeeding" (West Florida Statutes Annotated: Breastfeeding). There was no reasonable ground for denying Ms Jane to breastfeed her infant. The process of breastfeeding does not hamper the investigation or the interrogation process. Even if Ms Jane was detained with a probably cause of shoplifting, there was no reason for punishing the baby. Mr. Stubborn is in serious violation of the law. Moreover, it was finally realized that Mr. Stubborn had made a mistake. Ms Jane suffered from a psychological problem and had to undergo a special treatment, which must have cost Ms Jane, a breastfeeding mother, a lot of money. Attorney Youknow, hired by Ms Jane, should bring a case of malicious prosecution by Mr. Stubbornman and demand compensation that would cover Ms Jane's psychological and psychiatric treatment, any treatment that is necessary for the infant as defined by his doctors, and compensate for the moral damage inflicted upon the family of Ms Jane. The Tel-Mart store should also be held responsible for awarding apprehensions with bonus cash, which, in the opinion of this author, encouraged the security guards to detain suspects even if there were not sufficient grounds to do so. The store awarded the security guards with a bonus even if the persons apprehended were found not to be guilty.

Mr. Youknow, Ms Jane's attorney, should bring a case of malicious prosecution against the security guard and the Tel-Mart store. According to the Florida state jurisdiction, the store owner, and the security guard working for the store, had a right to detain a customer if there existed a probably cause that the customer was engaged in shoplifting. But to determine whether there was a probably cause in a malicious prosecution, the case needs to be decided by the jury. If the jury decides that there was a probably cause of shoplifting by the detained customer, the security guard then is justified in his actions. For example, in the Oosterhoudt v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. case in 1975, the case of false imprisonment and malicious prosecution was brought by a customer against a store owner whose security guard detained the customer and forced her to sign a paper affirming shoplifting and the subsequent release. The District Court of Appeal of Florida stated that they could not make a summary judgment on the case before it was determined by the jury whether there was probably cause of malicious prosecution in detaining the customer (Oosterhoudt v. Montgomery, 1975). The right of the store owner and the store's security guards to apprehend when there is probable cause of shoplifting was also affirmed by the Schaeper v. J.M. Fields, Inc. case, and again it was stated that jury should determine whether there was probably cause (Scheper v. J.M. Fields, Inc., 1978).

But while the case of Mr. Stubbornman's understanding of the probable cause for malicious prosecution should be decided by jury, his defense is weak because he realized that he had made a mistake. Even if Mr. Stubbornman can defend his position on detaining Ms Jane, however, it is indisputable that there was no reasonable ground for refusing Ms Jane the right to breastfeed her baby. No federal or state status or legislation justifies Mr. Stubbornman's action with regard to breastfeeding. Ms Jane breastfeeding her infant would not erase any evidences or allow Ms Jane to escape. So, the case of malicious prosecution is valid with regards to Mr. Stubbornman's behavior towards Ms Jane's breastfeeding. Mr. Youknow should also bring a case of malicious prosecution against the Tel-Mart store for being indirectly responsible for the case. The store offered impetus to the security guards to apprehend customers even if they did not believe there was probably cause of shoplifting. Therefore, the compensation for Ms Jane and her infant should be demanded from both the security guard and the Tel-Mart owner.

Mr. Youknow should also include Ms. Jane's son as a plaintiff although he is eight months old. There is historical and legal precedence that affirms the right of infants to be plaintiffs. For example, when the father of a two-year-old girl brought action against the Bay State Street Railway Company in 1918 after a street railway car injured the girl, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts stated that the "[r]ights of plaintiff, too young to care for herself, injured by street railway's car, must be determined by care exercised by her proper custodian" (Sughrue v. Bay State, 1918). In another case involving the Kansas City Railways Company in 1921, the Supreme Court of Missouri allowed a less than four-year-old boy to be in the court as a plaintiff, stating that "the plaintiff has a right to remain in the courtroom during the trial, though he is too young to testify . . ." (Bryant v. Kansas City Rys. Co., 1921). And in another case involving a motorist who injured an infant by wrongfully parking his bike in California in 1955, the District Court of Appeal allowed the infant's father to bring a case against the motorist, stating that the infant was a plaintiff represented "by her father as guardian ad litem" (Hughes v. MacDonald, 1955).

While the author of this paper could not find cases involving infants as plaintiffs in the state of Florida, it is reasonable to conclude that the prevalence of the case across the nation makes it valid for the state of Florida as well. Mr. Youknow therefore is justified to bring the infant as a plaintiff in a case against Mr. Stubbornman and the Tel-Mart store. In this case, the proper custodian -- that is, guardian at litem -- is the infant's mother. The presence of the infant in the case is not only justified… READ MORE

How to Reference "Ms Jane v. Mr. Stubbornman" Essay in a Bibliography

Related Essays:

Jane Hirshfield's "This Morning Essay

So this last word "chuff" is perhaps the clue to the shock of the final two lines of the poem, where the poet admits "Tonight, though, everything's different. / Tonight… read more

Essay 5 pages (1865 words) Sources: 1 Topic: Literature / Poetry

---

Jane Eyre the Single Most Dangerous Trap Term Paper

Jane Eyre

The single most dangerous trap of modern literary criticism is interjecting modern ideals and morals upon the past. Gilbert and Gubar discuss Jane Eyre's "rebellious feminism" and see… read more

Term Paper 7 pages (2206 words) Sources: 1+ Topic: Women / Feminism

---

Jane Austen Thomas Hardy and Emily Bronte Term Paper

Jane Austen (1811), Thomas Hardy, and Emily Bronte (1847)

Sex and Sensibility

It is well-known that the Victorian era was one in which massive inequalities existed between men and women.… read more

Term Paper 6 pages (2315 words) Sources: 0 Topic: Women / Feminism

---

Jane Addams Term Paper

Jane Addams

An Agent for Meaningful Social Change, Yesterday and Today

The variation of the established type is at the root of all change."

Jane Addams (Spirit of Youth 8)… read more

Term Paper 8 pages (2316 words) Sources: 1+ Topic: Women / Feminism

---

Jane Elliot Discrimination Is an Ugly Word Essay

Jane Elliot

Discrimination is an ugly word. Uglier still is to be on the receiving end of discrimination, to be the black kid in the classroom, the Hispanic kid, or… read more

Essay 3 pages (955 words) Sources: 0 Topic: Education / Teaching / Learning

---

View 100+ more related papers  >>