Hearod v. Denny's
Filed 6/14/06 Hearod v. Denny's CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
| CHRISTOPHER HEAROD, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DENNY'S, Defendant and Appellant. | C040082
(Super. Ct. No. 00AS02511) |
After placing an order for food to go at a restaurant owned and operated by defendant Denny's, plaintiff Christopher Hearod examined some plush Dalmatian puppies in a display case. When he returned for the food a short time later, Denny's employees accused him of stealing two of the puppies. Tensions escalated, words were exchanged, food fell to the floor, and the police were summoned. After viewing the security videotape, Denny's declined to press charges. Hearod filed suit against Denny's, alleging racial discrimination, defamation, false imprisonment, slander, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent spoliation of evidence. A jury awarded Hearod $50,000: $41,000 for emotional distress, $3,000 for civil rights violations, and $6,000 in punitive damages. Denny's appeals, contending: (1) since the jury found Denny's had probable cause to detain Hearod, the merchant's privilege bars all causes of action; (2) Denny's is not vicariously liable for civil rights violations committed by its employees; and (3) the award of general damages is not supported by substantial evidence and is excessive as a matter of law. We find the merchant's privilege bars Hearod's defamation claim. Since the jury's damage award does not distinguish between the defamation and emotional distress causes of action, we reverse the emotional distress award of $41,000. In all other respects, we shall affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The parties agree on very little as to what happened the night Denny's accused Hearod of stealing two spotted plush puppies valued at $2.99 each. Denny's contends its employees properly questioned a patron who acted suspiciously. The patron responded by exploding into profanity. Hearod contends Denny's personnel accused him of stealing, grabbed the food he had already paid for, and hurled a racial epithet at him. We briefly present the competing versions as they evolved at trial.
Denny's Version
The area manager responsible for the Denny's restaurant in question testified regarding the company's policies on racial discrimination. The area manager stated Denny's policies require the termination of any employee who makes racial comments to customers.
Allan Main, the server who waited on Hearod that evening, recounted his version of events. Hearod entered the restaurant and ordered some food to go. The toy puppies, which sat in an unlocked cabinet, tended to disappear from time to time. Hearod opened the cabinet and picked up a couple of the puppies. Main kept an eye on Hearod but did not see him take the puppies. After paying, Hearod left the restaurant while his food was being readied; he left quickly but was not running.
Another server, Belinda Stebbins, told Main she thought Hearod took some puppies. Main informed Todd Eiseland, the night shift manager, that he had not seen Hearod take the puppies, but Stebbins believed he had taken them.
When Hearod returned a short time later, Main grabbed his food. According to Main: â€
