D. Defenses
According to the court in Gathers v. Harris-Teeter,24 "[n]o one can enforce a right arising out of a transaction which he has voluntarily assented to."25 If a plaintiff voluntarily limits his freedom, he cannot claim false imprisonment. Where the evidence as to whether consent was given is conflicting, ambiguous, or inconsistent, it becomes a question of fact for the jury.26
The South Carolina Legislature has specifically provided authority for individuals arresting under certain circumstances to make lawful arrests.27 This protection extends to private citizens and merchants as well as to law enforcement officials.28 First, law enforcement officials have been given broad authority to make arrests.29 Additionally, citizens may make arrests if specific contingencies are met.30
The South Carolina legislature has even provided extra protection for merchants and their employees who stop suspected shoplifters.31 The critical aspect of the Shoplifter Defense appears to revolve around the reasonable cause requirement.32 For example, in Gathers v. Harris Teeter Supermarket, Inc., the Court of Appeals interpreted "reasonable cause" to mean "probable cause," defined as a "good faith belief that a person is guilty of a crime when this belief rests on such grounds as would induce an ordinarily prudent and cautious man, under the circumstances, to believe likewise."33
Additionally, in determining probable cause, only those facts and circumstances that were or should have been known to the defendant at the time the plaintiff was stopped should be considered.34 Probable cause exists even if the facts relied on subsequently prove to be false or incorrect as long as the facts known at the time plaintiff was stopped would have induced a reasonable and prudent person to believe plaintiff was guilty of the crime of shoplifting and a reasonable person would have relied on those facts.35 The facts known to the defendant must only give rise to a reasonable inference that the person delayed was guilty of shoplifting.36
Finally, as long as a party has legal authority to confine, an action for false imprisonment cannot be maintained against either the party imposing or causing the confinement as long as good faith is involved.37
Under the South Carolina Torts Claims Act,38 when a government employee commits a tort while acting within the scope of his or her official duty the plaintiff must sue the governmental agency, not the employee, but if the plaintiff proves the conduct of the employee was not within the scope of official duties or constituted actual fraud, actual malice, intent to harm, or a crime involving moral turpitude, then employee may be personally liable, but not the governmental employer.39 Even though false imprisonment is considered an intentional tort, a government is not automatically granted immunity from any intentional tort committed by an employee. One federal court said that false imprisonment could be committed without actual malice or intent to harm.40
The good faith of the defendant is not a defense to an action for false imprisonment.41
South Carolina Code § 15-3-550 provides for a two-year limitation for an action for libel, slander, or false imprisonment.42 Federal courts however, have said a three-year statute of limitations applies to civil rights claims of false imprisonment.43 False imprisonment is detention without legal process and a federal court has said the limitations period begins to run when the alleged false imprisonment ends.44
While common law charitable immunity was eliminated by the South Carolina Supreme Court in 1981,45 the decision does not have retroactive application.46 There is a statutory limitation on liability for charitable organizations.47 A "charitable organization'' is any organization, institution, association, society, or corporation which is exempt from taxation pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) or (d).48 A person "sustaining injury or dying"49 as a result of a tortious act of commission or omission by an employee50 of a charitable organization acting within the scope of his or her employment, may recover no more than the liability imposed under the Tort Claims Act51 for actual damages sustained. Unless it is proved that the employee acted recklessly, willfully, or in gross negligence, an action against the charitable organization is a complete bar to recovery against the employee.52
Comparative negligence is apparently no defense to false imprisonment.53
A federal court has found that a false imprisonment claim is not barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act.54
--------
Notes:
[24] Gathers v. Harris-Teeter Supermarket, 282 S.C. 220, 229, 317 S.E.2d 748, 754 (Ct. App. 1984).
[25] Id.
[26] Id.
[27] See, e.g., S.C. Code §§ 17-13-10 et seq.
[28] See id.
[29] S.C. Code § 17-13-30 provides that "[t]he sheriffs and deputy sheriffs of this State...
