9k for a can of coke!

insert name here 123

https://m.independent.ie/news/teenager-wrongly-accused-of-not-paying-for-a-can-of-coca-cola-awarded-9000-40135830.html

Doh! I wonder how much of the 9k he will actually get after legal fees?

walshb

Money for jam!

ROVER

Tesco had to pay both sides legal costs

walshb

Certainly will encourage people to deceptively/sneakily pay for items hoping to be then accused of stealing!

20/20

insert name here 123 wrote: »

https://m.independent.ie/news/teenager-wrongly-accused-of-not-paying-for-a-can-of-coca-cola-awarded-9000-40135830.html

Doh! I wonder how much of the 9k he will actually get after legal fees?

Did you read the article. . . The boy’s legal team was also awarded Circuit Court costs.

duffman13

walshb wrote: »

Certainly will encourage people to deceptively/sneakily pay for items hoping to be then accused of stealing!

This is a long time practice in order to try and get a claim.

Naive from the security guard to be honest, never stop unless 100% sure and definitely not a for a tiny sum like this. Claims are rife for this crap, usually they get settled quickly

Yester

If a shop falsely accused me of stealing and tried to detain me, I'd sue them as well.

db

walshb wrote: »

Certainly will encourage people to deceptively/sneakily pay for items hoping to be then accused of stealing!

Might encourage security staff to be sure before accusing a minor of theft and dragging them into a closed room. If he is anything like my son of a similar age I'd say he was terrified.

Sheep Shagger

Yester wrote: »

If a shop falsely accused me of stealing and tried to detain me, I'd sue them as well.

Why 9k though? Seems like a figure plucked out of the air....€900 perhaps.....

ROVER

Most people are not out to scam. The cost of this case should punish them in to implementing proper procedures.

johnnyryan89

walshb wrote: »

Certainly will encourage people to deceptively/sneakily pay for items hoping to be then accused of stealing!

Happens all the time. People will pick up stuff like clothes in Penney's and walk around looking suspicious and then hide them among clothes in the store and walk out hoping the security stops them.

Tesco kept 2c change from me the other day.

They can use that the cu*ts

Iteration1

Yester wrote: »

If a shop falsely accused me of stealing and tried to detain me, I'd sue them as well.

And thats something to be proud of? Jumping to a lawsuit as the answer? Contributing to compo-culture? You wouldn't opt to pull them up on their mistake at the scene, or wait and be satisfied when vindicated? Nah, I'd sue them, that's the best use of money and resources. The world wept.

KevRossi

It happens all the time, but going on the newspaper report the security guards went about it in a totally wrong way. I don't think it's worth near €9,000, but it's embarrassing being called a thief in public.

walshb

db wrote: »

Might encourage security staff to be sure before accusing a minor of theft and dragging them into a closed room. If he is anything like my son of a similar age I'd say he was terrified.

I wonder did the boy produce a receipt?

I mean, if the shop has a suspicion (which they can be entitled to have), then surely a quick receipt production is all that the boy needed? And if he did not have one, then maybe he should have?

Anyway, absolute scandalous amount awarded here. Compo culture greed as usual.

Mjolnir

The young fella was defamed not only amongst his peers but the larger community in the shopping centre, forcibly and falsely imprisoned and the security guard admitted fault.
Why wouldn't he sue he'd every right to do so.
Security guards don't have the authority to do what he did and before anyone brings up citizens arrest, yea you can still be sued for that.
Tort law exists for a reason and it was utilised well here.
You'd swear he'd purposefully slipped and was making a vexious fraudulent claim.

walshb

Security guards surely have some rights as regards stopping theft? Of course, sometimes they get it wrong, but they have to be able to at least challenge those that they believe have stolen?

This incident they got wrong. But 9000 euro is ridiculous.

If this boy paid for the items in a way that led to serious suspicion, then he also must share some blame..

And there are absolute cases where people deliberately set out to be accused..

Mjolnir

walshb wrote: »

I wonder did the boy produce a receipt?

I mean, if the shop has a suspicion (which they can be entitled to have), then surely a quick receipt production is all that the boy needed? And if he did not have one, then maybe he should have?

Anyway, absolute scandalous amount awarded here. Compo culture greed as usual.

There's bins at the self service tills in most tescos because a lot of people either leave or ditch theirs before they leave.

An innocent young fella may have not taken, ditched, or not had the wherewithal to show a receipt. Regardless burden of proof and all that.

Mjolnir

walshb wrote: »

Security guards surely have some rights as regards stopping theft? Of course, sometimes they get it wrong, but they have to be able to at least challenge those that they believe have stolen?

This incident they got wrong. But 9000 euro is ridiculous.

If this boy paid for the items in a way that led to serious suspicion, then he also must share some blame..

And there are absolute cases where people deliberately set out to be accused..

Absaloutly zero right to stop or acuse anyone, especially with force. Let them on and pass on the footage to the guards.
False imprisonment can also be performed by force, through embarrassment, fear, or intimidation its a slippery slope.

walshb

walshb wrote: »

I wonder did the boy produce a receipt?

I mean, if the shop has a suspicion (which they can be entitled to have), then surely a quick receipt production is all that the boy needed? And if he did not have one, then maybe he should have?

Anyway, absolute scandalous amount awarded here. Compo culture greed as usual.

You can't stop someone on suspicion of larceny here. You don't stop someone unless you are certain

cruizer101

To be fair the self service tills ask if you want a receipt and I generally say no as no point in creating extra rubbish, if they expect you to be able to produce a receipt there shouldn't be an option.

9k is excessive compensation though

walshb

Mjolnir wrote: »

Absaloutly zero right to stop or acuse anyone, especially with force. Let them on and pass on the footage to the guards.
False imprisonment can also be performed by force, through embarrassment, fear, or intimidation its a slippery slope.

Hold on..

Security guards have 0 right to challenge potential thieves?

What? So why would stores employ security?

Let them on and notify the gardai?

Am I actually reading this?

FourFourRED

walshb wrote: »

I wonder did the boy produce a receipt?

I mean, if the shop has a suspicion (which they can be entitled to have), then surely a quick receipt production is all that the boy needed? And if he did not have one, then maybe he should have?

Anyway, absolute scandalous amount awarded here. Compo culture greed as usual.

With the self service checkouts at Tesco these days you need to press a button on the touch screen to issue a receipt, you don’t one automatically. I never get a receipt for my normal shopping and definitely wouldn’t get one for a can of coke.

Should he have his receipt? No. If he should have it (for whatever reason you’re thinking of), the system should issue one automatically.

walshb

cruizer101 wrote: »

To be fair the self service tills ask if you want a receipt and I generally say no as no point in creating extra rubbish, if they expect you to be able to produce a receipt there shouldn't be an option.

9k is excessive compensation though

This is simple:

Two way respect and cooperation.

Security trying to do a difficult job for us all.

They sometimes make mistakes, but instead of society showing respect and consideration and understanding, it’s straight to the jugular. What can we get? Who can we screw? It’s greed in most instances...

This incident to me looks to be blown way out of exaggeration and beefed up by solicitors looking to get a pay out.

Security can make mistakes. They are humans. Do all these mistakes need to be big payouts?

Mjolnir

walshb wrote: »

Hold on..

Security guards have 0 right to challenge potential thieves?

What? So why would stores employ security?

Let them on and notify the gardai?

Am I actually reading this?

You are indeed, they are there to act as a deterrent, they have no more authority than the fella behind the till does.
Also an insurance issue not having them in some stores.

I'll repeat it you can not stop accuse and falsely imprison someone on suspicion of theft.

walshb

Mjolnir wrote: »

You are indeed, they are there to act as a deterrent, they have no more authority than the fella behind the till does.
Also an insurance issue not having them in some stores.

I'll repeat it you can not stop accuse and falsely imprison someone on suspicion of theft.

Ok.

So security in stores that see someone thieve have to simply let the person do so and let them leave. They cannot challenge them or speak to them or investigate in any way?

Ok, I am lost.

I can go to my local SuperValu and load up load goods and walk out unchallenged?

Yester

Iteration1 wrote: »

And thats something to be proud of? Jumping to a lawsuit as the answer? Contributing to compo-culture? You wouldn't opt to pull them up on their mistake at the scene, or wait and be satisfied when vindicated? Nah, I'd sue them, that's the best use of money and resources. The world wept.

Yes and I would also press charges against the security guard for assault and false imprisonment .

James Brown

walshb wrote: »

Certainly will encourage people to deceptively/sneakily pay for items hoping to be then accused of stealing!

Or stores to be more careful before they accuse someone of thievery and hold them against their will.

Mjolnir

walshb wrote: »

Ok.

So security in stores that see someone thieve have to simply let the person do so and let them leave. They cannot challenge them or speak to them or investigate in any way?

Ok, I am list..

They can call the guards or make a citizens arrest, the latter still leaves them open to being sued. They have no power of arrest, stopping someone on the suspicion of a crime is considered an ...........

If you don't belive me pick up the tort nutshell book it's basic but only €25, or you can pick up MacMahon & Binchy which is the authoritative text in Ireland but that will run you over 10x the amount.

walshb

Yester wrote: »

Yes and I would also press charges against the security guard for assault and false imprisonment .

Assault?

I’d like to hear the security guard’s version here...

The article has the boy’s brief saying this and that..

So I’d take that with a pinch of salt

Sounds very like the claimant would have sued for assault if assault actually happened..

So you know, maybe this assault talk is bull.

Mjolnir

Yester wrote: »

Yes and I would also press charges against the security guard for assault and false imprisonment .

Could of easily thrown in assualt for grabbing him, I'd argue that shows they were out to make a statement rather than bring in as much as they could.

growleaves

False imprisonment is fairly serious though.

TP_CM

It's such a weird case. I mean what security guard really gives a crap about a teenager walking out without paying for a can of coke? Would you really be arsed? Fair enough if it's a trolley full of booze, or a repeat offender, but a can of fizzy pop?

walshb

TP_CM wrote: »

It's such a weird case. I mean what security guard really gives a crap about a teenager walking out without paying for a can of coke? Would you really be arsed? Fair enough if it's a trolley full of booze, or a repeat offender, but a can of fizzy pop?

What?

He’s doing his job...or trying to..

Why wouldn’t security try to stop thieves?

The boy paid for his item. The security man did not set out to deliberately stop a person that they knew paid for the item..there is context here, but most folks want to just jump on the store and tge security..

It’s an anti establishment mentality. And then try to get as much out of it as possible..

The mentality of fook these companies, they can afford to pay.

Mjolnir

TP_CM wrote: »

It's such a weird case. I mean what security guard really gives a crap about a teenager walking out without paying for a can of coke? Would you really be arsed? Fair enough if it's a trolley full of booze, or a repeat offender, but a can of fizzy pop?

Given its the square tallaght the security has always been heavy handed and poorly educated on the law regardless of what firm worked there.
I've seen pre-teen traveller girls being dragged by their hair to break up a fight, that was 8 - 9 years ago when I lived up that way it used to be mental.

johnnyryan89

walshb wrote: »

Ok.

So security in stores that see someone thieve have to simply let the person do so and let them leave. They cannot challenge them or speak to them or investigate in any way?

Ok, I am lost.

I can go to my local SuperValu and load up load goods and walk out unchallenged?

More or less. We were told to let them leave the store before approaching them and never to approach them unless you're 110% sure they've left with an item and didn't pay.

Mjolnir

walshb wrote: »

What?

He’s doing his job...or trying to..

Why wouldn’t security try to stop thieves?

The boy paid for his item. The security man did not set out to deliberately stop a person that they knew paid for the item..there is context here, but most folks want to just jump on the store and tge security..

It’s an anti establishment mentality. And then try to get as much out of it as possible..

The mentality of fook these companies, they can afford to pay.

Jesus wept, because he has no legal right or authority to do so.
He's job is to deter theft not to arrest someone, he does not have the authority to do so.

Actually I'm viewing it from a neutral point of view of what the law says for this scenario and the kid was well within his rights.
If it was a corner shop I'd say the exact same thing.

Iteration1

I worry more about the lack of common sense. Stupid litigation awards have resulted in people defaulting to suing as the first resort for any transgression. Oh you bumped into me? Thats an opportunity for me to sue... Without even knowing additional detail about the case, people have identified on this thread that they would have pursued further litigation. Not because it was called for, because it merited it, or because it seemed justified, just because they can. They might get something out of it, so they should.

Mjolnir

johnnyryan89 wrote: »

More or less. We were told to let them leave the store before approaching them and never to approach them unless you're 110% sure they've left with an item and didn't pay.

At least you're told in my security time I've worked with lads who taught they were cops and were actively encouraged to act as such by management.
The lads and ladies who know the score avoid the headaches.

walshb

johnnyryan89 wrote: »

More or less. We were told to let them leave the store before approaching them and never to approach them unless you're 110% sure they've left with an item and didn't pay.

Ok, so they can challenge them..

Once they step off the premises, security can approach them..

Mjolnir

Iteration1 wrote: »

I worry more about the lack of common sense. Stupid litigation awards have resulted in people defaulting to suing as the first resort for any transgression. Oh you bumped into me? Thats an opportunity for me to sue... Without even knowing additional detail about the case, people have identified on this thread that they would have pursued further litigation. Not because it was called for, because it merited it, or because it seemed justified, just because they can. They might get something out of it, so they should.

That's a solicitors job though, to seek the maximimum compensation possible for their client.
If an avenue thats could possibly provide a successful claim isn't at least presented to the client the solicitor can ultimately be sued.

Yes there are vexatious claims that are beyond ridiculous I 100% agree, but the legitimate ones remain legitimate.

TP_CM

walshb wrote: »

What?

He’s doing his job...or trying to..

Why wouldn’t security try to stop thieves?

The boy paid for his item. The security man did not set out to deliberately stop a person that they knew paid for the item..there is context here, but most folks want to just jump on the store and tge security..

It’s an anti establishment mentality. And then try to get as much out of it as possible..

The mentality of fook these companies, they can afford to pay.

Yeah no I get you. Still though.. Really.. A can of coke.. from a giant company like Tesco? That you're not even 100% sure about? I just think life is hard enough dealing with the gutter of society day in day out. Would you really be arsed taking this risk unless you've seen it on the cctv. I think I'd take my 15 quid an hour or whatever it is and go home. While all this was going on, someone could have been walking out with trolley loads of whiskey. I would just concentrate more on the trolleys or at least items worth more than 50 cent or whatever they buy it at.

walshb

Mjolnir wrote: »

Jesus wept, because he has no legal right or authority to do so.
He's job is to deter theft not to arrest someone, he does not have the authority to do so.

Actually I'm viewing it from a neutral point of view of what the law says for this scenario and the kid was well within his rights.
If it was a corner shop I'd say the exact same thing.

I never said anything about security arresting anyone..

Security can approach someone they suspect of having thieved

meathstevie

Mjolnir wrote: »

The young fella was defamed not only amongst his peers but the larger community in the shopping centre, forcibly and falsely imprisoned and the security guard admitted fault.
Why wouldn't he sue he'd every right to do so.
Security guards don't have the authority to do what he did and before anyone brings up citizens arrest, yea you can still be sued for that.
Tort law exists for a reason and it was utilised well here.
You'd swear he'd purposefully slipped and was making a vexious fraudulent claim.

It’s not a “citizen arrest”, it’s a civilian arrest and theft is one of the offences for which there is a civilian power of arrest.

I wonder if the claimant made a complaint with Gardai in relation to alleged false imprisonment as well ?

Iteration1

Mjolnir wrote: »

That's a solicitors job though, to seek the maximimum compensation possible for their client.
If an avenue thats could possibly provide a successful claim isn't at least presented to the client the solicitor can ultimately be sued.

Yes there are vexatious claims that are beyond ridiculous I 100% agree, but the legitimate ones remain legitimate.

Point taken about that being the role of a solicitor, to get maximum benefit for their client. Its more the system that awards vexatious claims that I have an issue with, or the disproportionate awards provided for legitimate claims, by judges that don't know the price of a pint of milk. This has led to people seeing litigation as an opportunity, rather than a means of retribution.

Mjolnir

walshb wrote: »

I never said anything about security arresting anyone..

Security can approach someone they suspect of having thieved

Stopping someone, accusing them of theft and preventing them from leaving is arresting their movement and freedom.
You asked could they, you were answered, you don't like or believe the answer you were given, there's nothing more to say at this point.

walshb

Mjolnir wrote: »

Stopping someone, accusing them of theft and preventing them from leaving is arresting their movement and freedom.
You asked could they, you were answered, you don't like or believe the answer you were given, there's nothing more to say at this point.

Someone else said that security can approach if the person is off the premises..

Article says pulled back into the store. Implies he had left the store..

Then pulled back in...I’d line to hear or see this event to know for sure..

You can bet the solicitor for the boy hammed it up.

Anyway, huge mountain out of molehill it reads to me..

Mjolnir

Iteration1 wrote: »

Point taken about that being the role of a solicitor, to get maximum benefit for their client. Its more the system that awards vexatious claims that I have an issue with, or the disproportionate awards provided for legitimate claims, by judges that don't know the price of a pint of milk. This has led to people seeing litigation as an opportunity, rather than a means of retribution.

A professor told us most judges are old white ucd grads and former barristers, there's a type haha.

It's a double edge sword because it's there job, but some just take great pleasure in throwing in claims that have no business being made.

I know of one fella in particular who will take any claim comes his way regardless, he makes good money at it.

Mjolnir

walshb wrote: »

Someone else said that security can approach if the person is off the premises..

Anyway, huge mountain out of molehill it reads to me..

Theoretically you can do what you like, technically you or I can walk into tesco tomorrow and do the same as the security guard we'll have the same results.

They can't stop you leaving in anyway, and if they make the accusation in a way where basically anyone else notices or hears they can be sued for defimation, you don't even have to be negatively effected by the defimation to claim it.

Have people been stopped and detained after stealing and not brought a case, oh yea you bet I've seen it happen first hand multiple times and have always stepped away from it.
At the same time if they've any inclination of a claim they will, defimation in that scenario would be hard but not impossible to pursue.

poisonated

A lot of security guards/bouncers thin in they can make up the rules as they go.

Iteration1

Mjolnir wrote: »

A professor told us most judges are old white ucd grads and former barristers, there's a type haha.

It's a double edge sword because it's there job, but some just take great pleasure in throwing in claims that have no business being made.

I know of one fella in particular who will take any claim comes his way regardless, he makes good money at it.

Out of curiosity, I know we've agreed its the solicitor's responsibility to present the best argument, but is there a line often crossed? ie If a client states they were annoyed by a security guard, is there any repercussion for a solicitor to suggest that they were actually traumatised? Is there a grey line? Or a definitive one, that is regularly broken in the confidence of client/solicitor preparation?