I was recently doing some research on tort law in the wake of so many discussions about 'tort reform' and I came across a section about "Civil Recovery" laws.
If you haven't heard about them before, 'Civil Recovery' is essentially a type of tort law that allows merchants to collect damages related to shoplifting, criminal damage, or simply the costs of "investigation" of shoplifting to anyone suspected of theft or damages, regardless of criminal liability. A well known case is that of Glenn Rudge:
Big Retail Chains Dun Mere Suspects in Theft - WSJ.com
Quote:
After Miami handyman Glenn Rudge was accused of shoplifting an $8 set of drill bits at Home Depot, he thought he'd settled the matter when he showed his receipt to prosecutors and they dropped the charge.
But a few weeks later, a law firm hired by Home Depot began sending him letters demanding first $3,000, then a total of $6,000, implying he'd be sued if he didn't pay it.
|
This, to me, borders on racketeering. It flies in the face of the 'innocent until proven guilty' system that enables our rule of law, and I'm amazed to find out that all fifty states have some sort of civil recovery laws, and some federal installations like AX/PX have them.
The Accidental Thief - WSJ.com
Quote:
When lawyers and debt collectors pursue alleged shoplifters for monetary penalties with letters and phone calls, retailers call it "civil recovery." But the people targeted by the practice see it as something else. They describe it as a humiliating and intimidating process that leaves them all but defenseless.
There is little oversight of a system retailers call "civil recovery," created by special laws passed in all 50 states. With no proof of theft, the retailers demand money -- often $200 but sometimes far more -- and promise to avoid suing if it is paid quickly. Laws vary by state, but in general, retailers can demand these sums even if the item at issue was worth far less and was quickly recovered and put back on the shelf.
|
Frankly I'm shocked this sort of thing exists, and that there isn't more outrage behind it. This is the sort of tort reform I could get behind. But what about the stores? According to the same articles above, "retailers last year lost an estimated $40.5 billion to "shrinkage" -- as the industry refers to shoplifting, employee theft, and other inventory losses -- up from $37.5 billion the year before."
I understand their need to recover damages for lost or damaged goods, and even to help pay for 'security agents' responsible for watching for theft. But I personally think it should be tied to the outcome of a criminal case. If the case is dropped, then the ability to collect civil liability should be too. It seems that retailers are given the ability to collect money in the civil system without any sort of regulation or legal authority. Whats to stop stores from interrogating you for 'stealing' (even if you haven't), and then sending you a claim for the costs of that 'investigation' under Civil Recovery? In the case of state law, they're allowed to take you to creditors; in the case of federal law, they're allowed to garnish your wages or even collect it out of a tax credit or refund due you from the IRS (as they did me - ZING!).
What do you think?