Krystel D., et al. v. Sears Holding Corporation; Sears Roebuck and Co.; Alejandro Gamiz, an individual, and Does 1 through 20, inclusive
Published: Feb. 27, 2016 | Result Date: Feb. 4, 2016 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: BC486354 Verdict – Defense
Court
L.A. Superior Central
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Michael Louis Kelly
(Kirtland & Packard LLP)
C. Michael Alder
(AlderLaw PC)
Defendant
David F. McDowell Jr.
(Morrison & Foerster LLP)
Andrew C. Stanley
(Morrison & Foerster LLP)
Kelsey M. Stricker
(Morrison & Foerster LLP)
Facts
Krystel D. and other female customers sued Sears Holding Corp., Sears Roebuck and Co., and Alejandro Gamiz, in connection with an employee's surreptitious recordings of plaintiffs inside changing areas.
Contentions
PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants' employee was allegedly a peeping tom who installed hidden cameras and peepholes inside female changing areas and bathrooms that surreptitiously recorded plaintiffs in various state of undress. The employee built trap doors in order to gain access to various crawl spaces so he could peep. His trap doors were visible to the naked eye, but never noticed by Sears. The employee was also seen going in and out of the women's fitting room during store hours for up to 45 minutes without anyone noticing that he was in there even though it was against store policy for him to enter the women's fitting room. Defendant employer was allegedly liable to plaintiffs, who were Sears's employees and customers, for failing to safeguard against the peeping tom employee. Plaintiffs asserted claims for negligence.
Plaintiff contended defendant had notice of peeping toms in their stores since defendants were sued in 2008 when a store assistant manager in Virginia was found peeping on women and children in the fitting room. The Virginia manager admitted to peeping for a year.
Defendant employer was allegedly liable to plaintiffs, who were Sears's employees and customers, for failing to safeguard against the peeping tom employee. Plaintiffs asserted claims for negligence.
DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Sears asserted that the employee's conduct was unforeseeable and, therefore, insufficient to establish defendants were vicariously liable for his actions. Defendants likewise claimed that plaintiffs other claims failed.
Result
The jury found that Sears breached a duty of care (12-0), but that its breach was not a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs' harm, and the jury returned a verdict for Sears for this bellwether plaintiff only.
Other Information
The first case to proceed to trial was bellwether plaintiff Stephanie Evans, a customer of Sears. According to plaintiff, the next trial is set for June 14, 2016. FILING DATE: June 11, 2012.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390