This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Torts
Invasion of Privacy
Negligent Hiring and Supervision

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)

Josh Fields

C. Michael Alder
(AlderLaw PC)

Marni Beth Folinsky


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.


#122679

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390