Sawada v. Walmart Stores, Inc.
2015 Ark. App. 549
Ark. Ct. App.2015Background
- Sawada worked as a part-time Walmart cashier; she provided a statement after an internal investigation into alleged excessive price discounts for a friend.
- Walmart investigated Sawada’s couponing and price-matching for a friend, leading to her arrest for theft by a Russellville officer after Walmart’s report to police.
- Sawada was charged with theft of property $1,000–$5,000, but the criminal case was later nolle prosequi.
- Sawada claimed the Russellville Courier published a false story about her arrest and alleged Walmart made false statements to law enforcement.
- She filed five tort claims against Walmart, including defamation, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, outrage, and false light/invasion of privacy; the circuit court granted summary judgment on four and denied only the defamation claim, which was later reversed and remanded.
- The appellate court affirmed some claims and reversed/remanded on defamation for a proceedings-scope review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Malicious-prosecution elements | Sawada argues lack of probable cause for arrest | Walmart asserts probable cause based on investigation and evidence | Summary judgment for Walmart on malicious-prosecution affirmed |
| Defamation privilege and publication | Bryant’s statements to police and press were not privileged or were abused | Statements were privileged if tied to law-enforcement reporting | Partial reversal; remand for defamation/privilege dispute |
| False light/invasion of privacy | Publication placed Sawada in a false light; privacy invasion | Insufficient showing of false light and mental anguish | Affirmed in favor of Walmart; false light claim upheld as to outcome but not accepted for reversal |
| Outrage (intentional infliction of emotional distress) | Walmart conduct was extreme and outrageous | Emotional distress not extreme or outrageous as a matter of law | Affirmed; outrage claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Sundeen v. Kroger, 355 Ark. 138, 133 S.W.3d 393 (Ark. 2003) (elements of malicious prosecution; probable cause focus)
- Binns v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 341 Ark. 157, 15 S.W.3d 320 (Ark. 2000) (probable cause standard; honest and strong suspicion)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Lee, 348 Ark. 707, 74 S.W.3d 634 (Ark. 2002) (qualified privilege; reporting to law enforcement)
- DeHart v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 328 Ark. 579, 946 S.W.2d 647 (Ark. 1997) (negligent reporting as privileged communication)
- Felton (Dillard Dept. Store, Inc. v. Felton), 276 Ark. 304, 634 S.W.2d 135 (Ark. 1982) (defamation in employment context; privilege considerations)
- Addington v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 81 Ark. App. 441, 105 S.W.3d 369 (Ark. App. 2003) (privilege can be defeated by lack of truth-belief grounds or abuse of privilege)
- Williams v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 71 Ark. App. 211, 29 S.W.3d 754 (Ark. App. 2000) (objective test for probable cause; police-report context)
- Cordes v. Outdoor Living Ctr., Inc., 301 Ark. 26, 781 S.W.2d 31 (Ark. 1989) (probable-cause considerations in narrow contexts)
- Unicare Homes, Inc. v. Gribble, 63 Ark. App. 241, 977 S.W.2d 490 (Ark. App. 1998) (extreme and outrageous conduct; false-light/intentional distress framework)
- Tandy Corp. v. Bone, 283 Ark. 399, 678 S.W.2d 312 (Ark. 1984) (outrage/employee-directed conduct precedent)
- Superior Fed. Bank v. Mackey, 84 Ark. App. 1, 129 S.W.3d 324 (Ark. App. 2003) (defamation; privilege and publication scope)