Cecil Browne v. Thriftway's Manager, John Doe, Thriftway's Security, John Doe

(1) The plaintiff-appellant, Cecil Browne, filed this appeal from the
Superior Court's entry of judgment as a matter of law in defendant Thriftway's1
favor and from the Superior Court's denial of his motion for new trial. The
Superior Court entered judgment in Thriftway's favor after two days of trial on
Browne's claims of negligence, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and emotional distress.2 Browne's claims arose out of a March 1998 incident during
which Browne alleged that Thriftway's security guard assaulted him in the
Thriftway parking lot, dragged Browne back into the store, handcuffed him to a
door, and conspired with another Thriftway employee to frame him on a charge
of shoplifting.

(2) During the course of pretrial discovery, Thriftway informed
Browne that security at its store was provided by an independent company, J.R.
Gettier, Inc. Browne sought to amend his complaint to include Gettier as a
defendant. The Superior Court initially granted Browne's motion to amend as
unopposed but later rescinded the order, among other reasons, because Browne
failed to serve the defendants. Despite being given the opportunity to do so,
Browne never re-filed his motion to amend the complaint. Accordingly, the
only claims Browne presented at trial were against Thriftway.3

(3) The only evidence Browne presented at trial was his own
testimony. At the close of Browne's case-in-chief, Thriftway moved for
judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 50(b). The
Superior Court deferred ruling on the motion until it heard all the evidence. To
refute Browne's claims of false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, Thriftway presented undisputed evidence that the police had arrested Browne for
shoplifting,4 based on probable cause, as a result of the March 1998 incident at
the Thriftway store.5 Furthermore, to refute Browne's claims that Thriftway was
liable for any negligent or intentional misconduct by Gettier's security guard,
Thriftway presented undisputed evidence that Gettier was an independent
contractor and that Thriftway exercised no control over how Gettier provided
security to the store or how Gettier handled suspected shoplifters.

(4) Third-party defendant Gettier also presented the testimony of its
chief financial officer to establish that Gettier was an independent contractor.
At the close of all the evidence, the Superior Court granted judgment as a matter
of law to Thriftway because Browne had presented no evidence from which a
reasonable juror could find Thriftway liable for the alleged tortious conduct of
Gettier.6 Browne later filed a motion for new trial, which the Superior Court
denied.

(5) On appeal, this Court reviews the Superior Court's grant of
judgment as a matter of law to determine whether the evidence, viewed in the
light most favorable to the non-moving party, raises an issue of material fact for consideration by the jury.7 The denial of a motion for new trial is reviewed for
abuse of discretion.8

(6) After careful consideration of the parties' contentions and the
record below, we find it manifest that the judgment of the Superior Court should
be affirmed. Although the Superior Court gave Browne the opportunity to
properly move for an amendment to his complaint, the record reflects that
Browne failed to file a proper motion. Thus, Browne's only direct claims at trial
were against Thriftway. Even viewing the evidence presented at trial in the light
most favorable to Browne, the record supports the Superior Court's conclusion
that no reasonable juror could have found Thriftway liable based on the
evidence presented.

* * *

Click the case caption above for the full text of the Court's opinion.