' [Cits.]" Haile v. Pittman, 194 Ga. App. 105, 106 (3) ( 389 S.E.2d 564) (1989). "`Where all the apparent circumstances, reasonably viewed, are such as to lead a person reasonably to apprehend a violent injury from the unlawful act of another, there is an assault.' [Cit.] `Any act of physical violence (and the law will not draw a line between different degrees of violence), inflicted on the person of another, which is not necessary, is not privileged, and which constitutes a harmful or offensive contact, constitutes an assault and battery.' [Cit.
See OCGA § 15-11-65 (a). See Haile v. Pittman, 194 Ga. App. 105 (1) ( 389 SE2d 564) (1989) ("[B]eyond a reasonable doubt is more than clear and convincing evidence, which is more than preponderance of the evidence, which, in turn, is more than mere probable cause.") (punctuation omitted). The State concedes that clear and convincing is not the correct standard of proof, but contends that the trial court's statement was a mere lapsus linguae.
We find that Lowe's has met this burden and that Lowe's was entitled to summary judgment on Mitchell's claim of false imprisonment. See Haile v. Pittman, 194 Ga. App. 105, 106 (2) ( 389 S.E.2d 564) (1989); Crowe v. J.C. Penney, 177 Ga. App. 586, 588 (2) ( 340 S.E.2d 192) (1986). While Lowe's also claimed that the actions of its employees were protected by OCGA § 51-7-60, which allows a shopkeeper to detain someone for suspicion of shoplifting under certain circumstances, "[t]he statute makes no reference to the detention of people for reasons other than suspected shoplifting, and being in derogation of common law, it must be strictly construed."
Kemp v. Rouse-Atlanta, Inc., supra, 207 Ga. App. at 880 (3).Haile v. Pittman, 194 Ga. App. 105, 106 (3) ( 389 S.E.2d 564) (1989). 5.
The existence of probable cause standing alone is not a complete defense in a false imprisonment case because, even if probable cause to believe a crime has been committed exists, a warrantless arrest would still be illegal unless it was accomplished pursuant to one of the "exigent circumstances" applicable to law enforcement officers enumerated in OCGA § 17-4-20 (a) or applicable to private persons as set forth in OCGA § 17-4-60. Haile v. Pittman, 194 Ga. App. 105, 106 ( 389 S.E.2d 564) (1989). Thus, the defense of a warrantless arrest in a false imprisonment case must show that the arrest was made on probable cause and pursuant to the appropriate exigent circumstances.
Our courts have recognized an interest in the inviolability of one's person and, along with most other jurisdictions, have followed the common law rule that any unlawful touching is actionable as a battery. Haile v. Pittman, 194 Ga. App. 105, 106 (3) ( 389 S.E.2d 564) (1989). In Georgia, a civil battery claim may be brought pursuant to OCGA § 51-1-13 or § 51-1-14.
' Newsome v. Cooper-Wiss, Inc., 179 Ga. App. 670, 672 (1) ( 347 S.E.2d 619) (1986)." Haile v. Pittman, 194 Ga. App. 105, 106 (3) ( 389 S.E.2d 564) (1989). There was no evidence here of any touching other than that which had been contracted for when the Houstons placed their infant in the care of Kinder-Care. The use of time-out as a disciplinary tool was within the guidelines of Kinder-Care and was so used with John. There was no error in the grant of the directed verdict on this count.
Since appellant was arrested by an off-duty police officer working as a security guard in whose presence appellant appeared to have committed the offense of criminal trespass, the warrantless arrest was legal. Haile v. Pittman, 194 Ga. App. 105, 106 (2) ( 389 S.E.2d 564) (1989). Appellant, however, contends that there is a factual dispute as to whether he was ordered to leave Kroger's property or merely to leave the store, and thus a jury question exists on the issue of probable cause to arrest.
Moreover, “any unlawful touching is a physical injury to the person and is actionable as a battery.” Haile v. Pittman, 194 Ga.App. 105, 106 (1989). Thus, if a reasonable jury could find that the force used by an officer was excessive under the Fourth Amendment, then a jury could also find that the force was unlawful under the Georgia Constitution and constituted negligence or a battery.
[t]he existence of probable cause standing alone is not a complete defense in a false imprisonment case because, even if probable cause to believe a crime has been committed exists, a warrantless arrest would still be illegal unless it was accomplished pursuant to one of the “exigent circumstances” applicable to law enforcement officers enumerated in OCGA § 17-4-20(a) or applicable to private persons as set forth in OCGA § 17-4-60. Arbee v. Collins, 463 S.E.2d 922, 926 (Ga Ct. App. 1995) (citing Haile v. Pittman, 389 S.E.2d 564, 565 (Ga.Ct.App. 1989)). The undisputed evidence shows the existence of both probable cause and exigent circumstances.