Anna Beaudoin v. Walmart Inc.

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

24-357

ANNA BEAUDOIN

VERSUS

WALMART INC., ET AL

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 267,347
HONORABLE MONIQUE F. RAULS, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

ELIZABETH A. PICKETT
CHIEF JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, Ledricka J. Thierry, and Wilbur L. Stiles,
Judges.

AMENDED AND AFFIRMED AS AMENDED.

Jerry L. Lavespere, Jr.
Jerry L. Lavespere, Jr. “A Professional Law Corporation”
1805 Jackson Street
Alexandria, LA 71301
(318) 443-9926
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF- APPELLEE:
Anna Beaudoin

Gregory B. Odom, II
Chadwick, Odom, & Stokes, LLC
P. O. Box 12114
Alexandria, LA 71315
(318) 445-9899
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT- APPELLANT:
Wal-Mart Louisiana, LLC
Walmart Inc.

PICKETT, Chief Judge.

Following a jury trial, the trial court signed a judgment in the amount of

$150,000.00 in favor of Anna Beaudoin against Wal-mart Louisiana, LLC and

Walmart Inc. (Walmart) for damages she suffered following a Walmart employee’s

allegations that the twenty-dollar bills she attempted to use to pay for a purchase

were counterfeit. Walmart appealed the judgment. For the reasons discussed below,

we affirm the jury’s assessment of liability but reduce its damage award.

FACTS

On February 2, 2019, Anna Beaudoin visited the Walmart Neighborhood

Market in Pineville to purchase soft food items for her fiancé, Kayle Allen, whose

wisdom teeth had been removed that day. She attempted to complete her purchases

using a food-stamp card and cash at a self-service checkout register. The register

accepted the food-stamp card, but the balance on the card was insufficient to

complete her purchases. Ms. Beaudoin then attempted to use two twenty-dollar

bills (the bills) to pay the difference, but the register would not accept the bills. A

Walmart employee supervising the self-service checkout registers also attempted to

insert the bills into the register with the same result. The employee suggested Ms.

Beaudoin go to Customer Service to exchange the bills for other bills and return to

complete her purchase. Ms. Beaudoin testified she returned the bills to her wallet

as she walked to Customer Service. Ms. Beaudoin also testified the employee at

the self-checkout registers did not look at the bills when she attempted to get the

machine to accept them, and no Walmart employee looked at the bills.

An employee in Customer Service informed Ms. Beaudoin Walmart does

not exchange money but suggested she could exchange the bills at a bake-sale

fundraiser being conducted in the parking lot outside the store. Ms. Beaudoin acted

on the suggestion and purchased a bag of cookies for $2.00 at the fundraiser and

exchanged the bills for different bills. Ms. Beaudoin then returned to the store,

completed her purchase, and left the store.

Kyle Sellers, an off-duty state trooper, was at the fundraiser to support his

son’s baseball team. He testified a Walmart employee approached him after Ms.

Beaudoin left Walmart and informed him Ms. Beaudoin used counterfeit bills to

make her purchase and money exchange at the fundraiser. He explained the

Walmart employee believed Ms. Beaudoin’s bills were counterfeit because the

self-check register would not accept them. Trooper Sellers then approached Ms.

Beaudoin as she was in her vehicle preparing to drive home. He related the issue

with the bills as told to him by the Walmart employee and asked Ms. Beaudoin to

return to Walmart with him to resolve the issue. Ms. Beaudoin complied with his

request. Trooper Sellers testified he did not handle money for the bake sale and did

not see the bills until the Walmart employee reported the bills Ms. Beaudoin’s used

were counterfeit.

When Ms. Beaudoin and Trooper Sellers returned to Walmart, the Walmart

employee who reported Ms. Beaudoin as using counterfeit bills met them in the

vestibule of the store and instructed Ms. Beaudoin to sit on a bench. Sellers and

the Walmart employee kept Ms. Beaudoin from leaving Walmart for

approximately two hours. During that time, Ms. Beaudoin was required to sit in

full view of the public in the midst of customers and employees while Trooper

Sellers and Walmart employees tried to determine how to proceed. Eventually,

Trooper Sellers contacted the Pineville Police Department and reported the

Walmart employee’s allegation that Ms. Beaudoin attempted to negotiate

counterfeit bills to make her purchase at Walmart, then used the counterfeit bills to

make a purchase and bill exchange at the fundraiser. Trooper Sellers testified he

thought Walmart’s employees were more knowledgeable than him about
2

counterfeit bills because they regularly deal with cash. He explained he contacted

the Pineville Police Department after Walmart’s employees could not determine

whether the bills were counterfeit.

Upon arrival at Walmart, the Pineville police officer, Corporal Jacob Hood,1

handcuffed Ms. Beaudoin with her hands behind her back and patted her down.

The pat down was conducted in public with a “crowd of people” around. When

conducting the pat down, Corporal Hood made Ms. Beaudoin, who was eight

months pregnant, lift her blouse which exposed her stomach to the public. Ms.

Beaudoin testified she had never been in trouble before and was “terrified” and

crying. Corporal Hood placed Ms. Beaudoin into his police car to transport her to

the police station. Ms. Beaudoin testified she sat in the police car for

approximately thirty minutes before Corporal Hood released her to go home.

Corporal Hood testified he released her because he and his superior officer could

not determine whether the bills were counterfeit and decided to release Ms.

Beaudoin while the bills were tested at the crime lab to determine if they were

counterfeit. Ultimately, the bills were determined not counterfeit and returned to

Ms. Beaudoin.

While detained, Ms. Beaudoin repeatedly reported to Trooper Sellers and the

Walmart employee her fiancé had gotten the bills from the Chase Bank office near

Walmart which he withdrew from the bank the previous day and asked them to

check with the bank. No one acted on her request.

Ms. Beaudoin filed suit against Walmart and Trooper Sellers alleging claims

for defamation, false imprisonment, false arrest, intentional and negligent infliction

of emotional distress, conversion, illegal search, and negligence. Trooper Sellers

1
At trial, Corporal Hood was employed by the Parish Sheriff’s Office. When
investigating whether Ms. Beaudoin negotiated counterfeit bills, he was a patrol officer with the
Pineville Police Department.
3

and Walmart filed motions for summary judgment, seeking to have Ms.

Beaudoin’s claims against them dismissed. After conducting a hearing on each

motion, the trial court dismissed Ms. Beaudoin’s claims against Trooper Sellers

and dismissed all of her claims against Walmart, except her claim for general

negligence.

On October 24-25, 2023, Ms. Beaudoin tried her claims against Walmart

before a jury. The jury returned a verdict that Walmart was negligent and its

negligence caused Ms. Beaudoin damages. The jury awarded her damages totaling

$150,000.00 for past and future mental anguish. Walmart appealed.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

On appeal, Walmart assigns four errors with the trial court proceeding:

1) The trial court committed legal error by not providing the jury with an
instruction that the chain of causation would be broken if they found
the Pineville Police Department conducted an independent
investigation.

2) The trial court committed legal error by including La.Code Crim.P. art.
215 as Jury Instruction No. 14, which relates to the claim of false
imprisonment that was summarily dismissed prior to trial.

3) The trial court committed legal error by denying Walmart’s Motion
for Summary Judgment in part and failing to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim
for general negligence.

4) The jury abused its discretion by awarding $150,000.00 for past and
future mental anguish.

DISCUSSION

Summary Judgment

We begin our discussion with Walmart’s third assignment of error because if

we find merit in this assignment, we need not address the remaining assigned

errors. Pursuant to Hopkins v. American Cyanamid Co., 95-1088 (La. 1/16/96), 666

So.2d 615, appellate review of a trial court’s denial of summary judgment is

4

treated differently after a case has been fully tried and the denial is assigned as

error on appeal. The supreme court explained in Hopkins, Id. at 624:

[O]nce a case is fully tried, the affidavits and other limited
evidence presented with a motion for summary judgment—later
denied by the district court—are of little or no value. Appellate courts
should not rule on appeal after a full merits trial on the strength alone
of affidavits in support of a motion for summary judgment that was
not sustained in the district court. In such cases, appellate courts
should review the entire record.

Walmart asserts the trial court erred in denying its motion for summary

judgment with respect to Ms. Beaudoin’s negligence claims, arguing her

negligence claims were subsumed with her claim for defamation that was

dismissed on Walmart’s motion for summary judgment. Ms. Beaudoin counters

her claims for negligence are based on Policies and Procedures adopted by

Walmart and, therefore, were not subsumed by the dismissal of her defamation

claim against Walmart. Louisiana courts recognize a defendant’s failure to abide

by its own policies and procedures can serve as the basis for a negligence claim.

LaGrappe v. Progressive Sec. Ins. Co., 14-720 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/23/14), 154

So.3d 1263, writ denied, 15-200 (La. 4/17/15), 165 So.3d 71.

In Kennedy v. Sheriff of East Baton Rouge, 05-1418 (La. 7/10/06), 935 So.2d

669, the supreme court determined when a plaintiff sues a defendant for

defamation and the defendant successfully establishes it is entitled to a conditional

or qualified privilege based on La.Code Crim.P. 215, the plaintiff’s claim for

negligence is subsumed within her defamation claim. The supreme court addressed

the issue in a footnote, stating:

We note, incidentally, that in a case such as this one, where a
conditional privilege is found to exist, the negligence standard that is
part of plaintiff’s prima facie case is logically subsumed in the higher
standard for proving knowing falsity or reckless disregard as to truth
or falsity. Therefore, the negligence analysis drops out of the case, for
if the plaintiff is incapable of proving the knowing falsity or reckless
disregard as to truth or falsity necessary to overcome the privilege, it
5

is of no consequence that he or she might be able to prove the lesser
standard of negligence.

Kennedy, Id. at 687-88, n.19.

The supreme court clearly differentiated the negligence standard that is part

of a plaintiff’s prima facia case for defamation in cases involving a conditional

privilege from the standard applicable to other negligence claims a plaintiff may

have against a defendant. No conditional privilege exists in this case because Ms.

Beaudoin’s negligence claims are based on Walmart’s failure to abide by its own

Policies and Procedures. Accordingly, this note does not apply.

Ms. Beaudoin presented the testimony of Dan Regan, a Walmart Corporate

Executive, who serves as Market Asset Protection Manager. Mr. Regan is

responsible for the safety and security of seventeen stores, but the Pineville

Neighborhood Walmart is not one of those stores. Mr. Regan’s duties include the

elimination of theft and fraud with the goal of driving profitability and reducing

operational shrinkage. Mr. Regan testified Walmart’s Policies and Procedures are

aimed at protecting Walmart’s assets which include its employees, customers, as

well as inventory, etc. He stated Walmart’s Policies and Procedures apply to all

Walmart stores, including the Pineville Neighborhood Walmart.

Mr. Regan identified a number of Policies and Procedures which were

violated during Ms. Beaudoin’s detention at Walmart. For example, only an

authorized associate can initiate an investigation and accuse a customer of a crime;

however, the evidence does not establish an authorized associate was on duty when

Ms. Beaudoin was detained. Mr. Regan agreed one purpose of this policy is to

prevent the wrongful detention of customers.

Mr. Regan further testified Walmart has a policy that a store can only refuse

to accept cash from or exchange cash for a customer after a “trend” has been

6

established regarding a customer’s use of counterfeit money and an authorized

associate has determined a variance from its general Policies and Procedures on the

issue is warranted. He acknowledged no such trend had been established as to Ms.

Beaudoin. He also testified Walmart’s stop and detention of Ms. Beaudoin violated

Walmart’s general Policies and Procedures if Ms. Beaudoin was detained by an

unauthorized associate who did not investigate Ms. Beaudoin and the situation at

hand before stopping her, did not write a report on the detention and investigation,

and did not take the necessary steps to obtain and preserve evidence relevant to the

issue at hand. Walmart did not present any evidence at trial showing it investigated

Ms. Beaudoin’s detention or the identity of the employee who alleged Ms.

Beaudoin negotiated counterfeit bills and explained the employee died before trial.

Mr. Regan explained any detention should be “reasonable” and should not

exceed the maximum detention period provided by state law. He acknowledged

Trooper Sellers testified a Walmart employee initiated the detention. He also

agreed the detention violated Walmart’s Policies and Procedures if a Walmart

employee initiated the detention and it last lasted more than one hour as provided

in La.Code Crim.P. art. 215(A)(1). Mr. Regan further testified any Walmart

employee who suspects a customer of using counterfeit money should report the

issue to an Asset Protection Associate who should conduct an investigation. Mr.

Regan identified additional violations of Walmart’s Policies and Procedures that

occurred with Ms. Beaudoin’s detention.

Walmart sought to distinguish much of Mr. Regan’s testimony on direct

examination by relying on Trooper Sellers’ testimony and the testimony of

Corporal Hood, to argue Trooper Sellers, not a Walmart employee, initiated the

investigation, and he should have prepared a report on the investigation. Walmart

further argued its Policies and Procedures regarding detention do not apply here
7

because Trooper Sellers initiated the detention and contacted the Pineville Police

Department.

Corporal Hood testified Trooper Sellers reported to him that Ms. Beaudoin

attempted to use counterfeit bills to purchase cookies at the bake sale. His

testimony on this issue was at odds with Trooper Sellers’ testimony. Trooper

Sellers testified a Walmart employee approached him at the bake sale after Ms.

Beaudoin left the store and reported Ms. Beaudoin used counterfeit bills to make

her purchase and bill exchange at the bake sale.

Walmart also pointed out some differences between Ms. Beaudoin’s

deposition testimony and her trial testimony. When cross-examining Ms. Beaudoin,

counsel for Walmart noted she did not mention in her deposition Trooper Sellers

told her a Walmart employee accused her of using counterfeit bills but testified at

trial Trooper Sellers told her a Walmart employee made the accusation to him. Ms.

Beaudoin explained she was nervous at her deposition, in part, because she had to

miss work and lose income which created a financial hardship for her and Mr.

Allen.

Having reviewed the record and considered the evidence presented at trial,

we find genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether Walmart was

negligent in violating some of its Policies and Procedures. Accordingly, the trial

court did not err in denying Walmart’s motion for summary judgment on the issue

of negligence.

Jury Instructions

Walmart assigns two errors with the trial court’s jury instructions. It asserts

the court erred in refusing to provide one instruction to the jury on causation and

providing another instruction on La.Code Crim.P. art. 215 over its objection.

Pursuant to La.Code Civ.P. art. 1792(B), the trial court must instruct jurors on the
8

law applicable to the case before them. Adams v. Rhodia, Inc., 07-2110 (La.

5/21/08), 983 So.2d 798. When preparing jury instructions, the trial court must

insure the instructions are unlikely to confuse the jury and, in doing so, may decide

what law is and is not applicable. Id. Jury instructions should “fairly and

reasonably point out the issues” and “provide correct principles of law.” Id. at 804.

Trial courts have much discretion in preparing jury instructions, but they must take

care to insure the instructions provide the jury with the correct law. Dobyns v. Univ.

of Louisiana Sys., 18-811 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/12/19), 275 So.3d 911, writ denied, 19-

950 (La. 9/24/19), 278 So.3d 977. If an instruction was incorrect and the error

likely contributed to the jury’s verdict, the verdict must be set aside. When

reviewing jury instructions, “the determinative question is whether the jury

instructions misled the jury to the extent that it was prevented from dispensing

justice.” Adams, 983 So.2d at 804.

Causation

Walmart argues the trial court legally erred when it refused to instruct the

jury that the chain of causation between Walmart’s actions and Ms. Beaudoin’s

damages was broken when the Pineville Police Department conducted an

independent investigation following Walmart’s report that Ms. Beaudoin attempted

to pay for her purchases with counterfeit twenty-dollar bills. Walmart requested the

trial court to instruct the jury: “An investigation of a crime or potential crime by a

police force breaks the chain of causation between the report of the crime and the

plaintiff’s arrest and subsequent damages[,]” citing Kennedy, 935 So.2d at 687-88,

n.19, as support for the proposed instruction. The trial court refused to include the

proposed instruction.

9

Louisiana Code Criminal Procedure Article 215(A)(1), provides:

A peace officer, merchant, or a specifically authorized
employee or agent of a merchant, may use reasonable force to detain a
person for questioning on the merchant’s premises, for a length of
time, not to exceed sixty minutes, unless it is reasonable under the
circumstances that the person be detained longer, when he has
reasonable cause to believe that the person has committed a theft of
goods held for sale by the merchant, regardless of the actual value of
the goods. The merchant or his employee or agent may also detain
such a person for arrest by a peace officer. The detention shall not
constitute an arrest.

In Kennedy, 935 So.2d 669, a customer tendered a $100 bill at a drive-thru

restaurant to pay for his order, and an employee reported the customer to the police

for negotiating suspected counterfeit money. The police responded while the

customer was waiting in the drive-thru for his order and immediately took over the

investigation. The supreme court determined the plaintiff could not prove his claim

for malicious prosecution under La.Code Crim.P. art. 215 because the evidence

established:

[T]he employees of [the defendant merchant] merely reported
their suspicions of counterfeit currency to the Sheriff’s Office. When
the deputies arrived at the restaurant, [the defendant’s] employees
pointed out the vehicle from which the one hundred dollar bill had
been tendered and handed over the suspect currency. At that point, the
involvement of [the defendant’s] employees ceased, and the East
Baton Rouge Parish officers took over, conducting their own
examination of the currency before approaching the plaintiff. Given
these facts, which were not controverted by plaintiff, it is clear that
any chain of causation regarding plaintiff’s subsequent detention was
broken. The decision to detain plaintiff was made by the independent
actions and investigation of the Sheriff’s Office. See, Banks v.
Brookshire Brothers Inc., 93–1616 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/01/94), 640
So.2d 680. Therefore, because plaintiff cannot establish that he will be
able to provide factual support sufficient to satisfy his burden of
proving legal causation, an essential element of a malicious
prosecution action, that claim (to the extent it was stated) was
properly dismissed.

Id. at 690-91, n.20.

There is no comparison between the facts in Kennedy and the facts here. A

Walmart employee accused Ms. Beaudoin of negotiating counterfeit bills. As
10

discussed above, Ms. Beaudoin testified the self-checkout register employee did

not examine the bills and no other Walmart employee saw the bills after she

returned them to her wallet. Ms. Beaudoin’s uncontradicted testimony is the only

evidence on this issue. Moreover, the evidence established Walmart’s employee

was present and involved in the investigation until Corporal Hood released her to

go home. Therefore, the directive in Kennedy has no application here, and the trial

court did not err in refusing to give Walmart’s requested jury instruction.

Furthermore, Ms. Beaudoin’s claims against Walmart are for its negligence

in failing to abide by its own Policies and Procedures. Mr. Regan’s testimony

established that a determination of whether Walmart violated some of its Policies

and Procedures requires consideration of Louisiana law. For example, its Policies

and Procedures provide a detention should not exceed the maximum detention

period allowed by state law unless reasonable cause exists for the prolonged

detention. Thus, La.Code Crim.P. 215(A)(1), which limits the detention of a person

suspected of committing a theft to sixty minutes, must be considered when

determining whether Walmart violated that provision and whether it was negligent

in doing so.

For these reasons, Kennedy, 935 So.2d 669, does not apply to Ms.

Beaudoin’s claims, and the trial court did not err in refusing to give Walmart’s

causation instruction to the jury.

Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 215

In its second assignment of error, Walmart urges the trial court erred in

providing a jury instruction on La.Code Crim.P. art. 215 because it provides a

cause of action for false imprisonment, not negligence. Additionally, it argues the

instruction misled the jury into believing liability could be established based on

evidence of a detention exceeding sixty minutes.
11

Ms. Beaudoin alleged Walmart breached its Policies and Procedures and

general obligations it owes to its customers. She asserted Walmart committed

twenty breaches of its Policies and Procedures, including: 1) excessive and

unreasonable detention under the circumstances; 2) embarrassment, belittling,

exposing, and humiliating her in public; 3) failure to investigate her explanation

that the bills were not counterfeit; 4) no trained personnel were on duty to handle

the situation; 5) no means of determining the validity of the alleged counterfeit

bills such as bill markers; and 6) conducting the investigation in public rather than

a secluded area.

Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 215 delegates quasi-police

powers to peace officers, merchants, and specifically authorizes employees or

agents of merchants to combat shoplifting and grants civil and criminal immunity

from liability for detaining someone for shoplifting when they have reasonable

cause to believe a theft of goods occurred. Thomas v. Schwegmann Giant

Supermarket, Inc., 561 So.2d 992 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1990). The detention period is

limited to sixty minutes. La.Code Crim.P. art. 215(A)(1).

Based on Mr. Regan’s testimony, Walmart’s Policies and Procedures adopt

that limitation, as well as the requirement that a trend must exist, i.e., “reasonable

cause,” to detain a person suspected of using counterfeit money. For these reasons,

we cannot say the trial court’s jury instruction on La.Code Crim.P. art. 215 misled

the jury or prevented it from dispensing justice and find this assignment lacks merit.

Damages

In its last assignment of error, Walmart contends the jury’s award of

$150,000.00 in damages is excessive and urges her award for damages should not

exceed $40,000.00.

12

In Barber Brothers. Contracting Co., LLC v. Capitol City Produce Co., LLC,

23-788 (La. 12/19/24), _ So.3d_, 2024 WL 5162733, our supreme court addressed

appellate review of general damage awards restating the fact that reasonable jurors

often disagree about the amount of general damages warranted in specific cases.

The court further explained:

General damage awards must not be “obviously the result of
passion or prejudice, and they [should] bear a reasonable relationship
to the elements of the proved damages.” Youn, 623 So.2d at 1261. “To
reduce the trier of fact’s award, [a reviewing court] must conclude
from the entirety of the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to
the plaintiff, that a rational trier of fact could not have fixed the
awards of general damages at the level set by the [fact finder] or that
this is one of those ‘exceptional cases where such awards are so gross
as to be contrary to right reason.’” Davis v. Hoffman, 00-2326, p. 3
(La.App. 4 Cir. 10/24/01), 800 So.2d 1028, 1030 (quoting
Bartholomew v. CNG Producing Co., 832 F.2d 326, 331 (5th Cir.
1987); see also Youn, 623 So.2d at 1261. In summary, to find abuse of
discretion warranting the disturbance of a factfinder’s award of
general damages, a reviewing court must find that the award is “so
high or so low in proportion to the injury . . . that it shocks the
conscience.” Baack v. McIntosh, 2020-1054 (La. 6/30/21), 333 So.3d
1206, 1215 (quoting Riley v. Maison Orleans II, Inc., 01-0498, p. 11
(La. App. 4 Cir. 9/25/02), 829 So.2d 479, 487).

Id. at 3. The court also clarified that when reviewing general damage awards,

appellate courts must consider prior damage awards “as a starting point[]” and also

consider those awards in light of the circumstances of the case being reviewed. Id.

at 9 (quoting Pete v. Boland Marine & Mfg. Co., LLC, 23-170, p. 9 (La. 10/20/23),

379 So.3d 636, 643).

After being detained, Ms. Beaudoin called Mr. Allen to meet her at Walmart.

She and Mr. Allen described for the jury the effect Walmart’s actions had on her.

Ms. Beaudoin explained when she returned to the Walmart store with Trooper

Sellers, a Walmart employee directed her to sit on a bench near the entrance of the

store. She was then instructed to follow Trooper Sellers and the Walmart employee

to an area in front of the Customer Service desk where she remained until Corporal

13

Hood arrived. During that time Trooper Sellers and the Walmart employee

examined the bills with a regular light and tried without success to find a

counterfeit bill marker to check the bills. Trooper Sellers, the reporting Walmart

employee, and some other Walmart associates went into a room behind the

Customer Service desk. Ms. Beaudoin was left in public view with other Walmart

employees. When Trooper Sellers and the Walmart employees returned, Trooper

Sellers informed her, the police were on the way. Upon arrival, Corporal Hood of

the Pineville Police Department handcuffed her. She called Mr. Allen at that time.

Ms. Beaudoin remained in open view of the public while at Walmart. She

had to raise her blouse in a crowd of about thirty people which she testified

consisted of Walmart employees and customers who had gathered around her. She

felt “terrified” and began crying. Ms. Beaudoin’s pregnancy was high risk, and she

explained that being eight months pregnant in such a high stress situation, caused

her to be concerned for her unborn baby’s safety. Ms. Beaudoin testified she had

never been in trouble and Corporal Hood told her she would go “down for a

felony.” Additionally, Ms. Beaudoin was in nursing school at the time, and

Trooper Sellers told her she could forget about becoming a nurse.

Corporal Hood walked Ms. Beaudoin out of Walmart to his vehicle to

transport her to the police department. When she exited Walmart, Ms. Beaudoin’s

hands were handcuffed behind her back. She testified ball players at the bake sale

pointed at her and stated they had never seen anyone arrested. Corporal Hood

could not determine the bills were counterfeit and released Ms. Beaudoin before

taking her to the station. Mr. Allen drove her home from Walmart because she was

holding her stomach and was too stressed to drive. Ms. Beaudoin described the

ordeal as lasting three hours. Mr. Allen’s testimony on this issue was similar.

When Ms. Beaudoin went home, she remained upset and crying. She had bruises
14

and pain on her wrists from the handcuffs. She would not shop for a long time after

the incident. She no longer uses or carries cash. She also does not use shelf-

checkout registers any more.

Ms. Beaudoin testified she sought treatment for anxiety and mental anguish

and acknowledged she had been treated for anxiety before being stopped at

Walmart. This prior treatment has no bearing on her damage award as a defendant

in a negligence action “takes his victim as he finds him and is responsible for all

natural and probable consequences of his tortious conduct.” Lasha v. Olin Corp.,

625 So.2d 1002, 1005 (La.1993).

Ms. Beaudoin saw three different doctors after the Walmart incident. In June

2021, she saw a doctor for her pre-existing ADHD. She reported being depressed,

anxious, and unable to focus. She also saw Dr. Gerald Leglue, reporting back pain

and the Walmart incident. Dr. Leglue noted the history she related of the Walmart

incident and opined she possibly had PTSD. He referred her to Dr. James Quillin,

for a psychological evaluation. Ms. Beaudoin thought she followed up on the

referral to Dr. Quillin, but he died before trial. She explained she was unable to

obtain any medical records because his office had closed.

Mr. Allen testified Ms. Beaudoin was handcuffed at Walmart’s Customer

Service desk when he arrived at the store. He described her as scared, crying,

embarrassed, very stressed, and confused. She was holding her stomach and had

welts on her wrists from the handcuffs. Mr. Allen explained customers saw her

handcuffed and being detained in the middle of the store near the check-out lanes.

He also testified Ms. Beaudoin no longer touches cash and uses only a debit card.

He stated she continues to relive her experience and continues to suffer anxiety,

mental anguish, and embarrassment as a result of the incident. He described the

experience as being “burnt on her brain.”
15

Ms. Beaudoin’s testimony, together with Mr. Allen’s testimony and her

medical records, establish the Walmart incident exacerbated her pre-existing

anxiety and subjected her to public humiliation, mental anguish, and

embarrassment. The evidence does not, however, establish she was diagnosed with

PTSD as she contends.

Walmart urges the trial court’s award of $150,000.00 is excessive and urges

this court to reduce the award to $40,000.00. In Thomas v. Busby, 95-1147

(La.App. 3 Cir. 11/13/96), 682 So.2d 1025, writ denied, 96-2990 (La. 2/21/97),

688 So.2d 517, this court upheld a $25,000.00 defamation award based on the

plaintiff's testimony that he was embarrassed and humiliated for being stopped at a

Walmart gardening center and accused in front of other customers of stealing three

bags of soil that he was actually returning for a refund. Thomas testified he was

embarrassed and humiliated and was consumed by the incident for a few weeks

after the incident. He did not seek professional treatment. The incident occurred in

May 1994. Adjusted for inflation as of the November 2023 trial date, using the U.S.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Inflation Calculator2, the value of this

award was $50,000.00 at trial.

In Cluse v. H & E Equipment Services, Inc., 09-574 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/31/10),

34 So.3d 959, writ denied, 10-994 (La. 9/17/10), 45 So.3d 1043, after a piece of his

heavy equipment was wrongfully seized off a work project and he was accused of

being a thief, the plaintiff sued to recover damages for embarrassment and

humiliation. The plaintiff, a businessman and police juror, was normally very

active and regularly interacted with people, but, after these accusations were made

public, he just went to work and then home. He suffered embarrassment,

2
The CPI Inflation Calculator is located at https://www.bls.gov/ data/inflation_calculator.
htm.

16

humiliation, anxiety, mental anguish, and hurt feelings. This court affirmed the

jury’s award of $25,000.00. Adjusted for inflation as of the November 2023

appellate decision date, using the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price

Inflation Calculator, this value of this award was approximately $38,000.00 at trial.

Walmart cites Dauzat v. Dolgencorp, LLC, 15-1096 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/6/16),

215 So.3d 833, writ denied, 16-832 (La. 6/17/16), 192 So.3d 766, where the two

plaintiffs were awarded $20,000.00 each after being wrongfully accused of

shoplifting and arrested. Evidence at trial established the incident injured their

reputations and caused them to experience anger, stress, shame, anxiety, feelings of

personal humiliation, embarrassment, as well as mental anguish and suffering.

Adjusted for inflation, the value of this award was approximately $27,000.00 at

trial.

Having reviewed the awards in the above cases, we find Ms. Beaudoin’s

damage award of $150,000.00 is so high in light of her injuries and awards for

similar injuries that it shocks the conscience. However, we also find she is entitled

to damages greater than those awarded to the plaintiffs in the above cited cases and

the $40,000.00 suggested by Walmart because she was detained, handcuffed, and

patted down in public which required her to expose her pregnant stomach.

Moreover, the evidence shows the detention has had a lasting effect on her.

Accordingly, we reduce Ms. Beaudoin’s award to $75,000.00.

17

DISPOSITION

For the reasons discussed above, we affirm the jury’s assessment of liability

but reduce its damage award to $75,000.00. All costs are assessed to Wal-mart

Louisiana, LLC and Walmart Inc.

AMENDED AND AFFIRMED AS AMENDED.

18