# Shillington v. K-Mart Corp.

> Court of Appeals of North Carolina · March 19, 1991 · 102 N.C. App. 187

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9565446

## Case

- **Full name:** THOMAS PATRICK SHILLINGTON, Plaintiff v. K-MART CORPORATION, Defendant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of North Carolina
- **Decided:** March 19, 1991
- **Citations:** 102 N.C. App. 187; 402 S.E.2d 155; 1991 N.C. App. LEXIS 302; 1991 WL 35481
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Wells
- **Judges:** Cozort, Johnson, Wells
- **Cited by:** 15 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9565446

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that evidence defendant accused plaintiff of shoplifting was sufficient to prove slander per se
- holding no “initiation” where defendants gave information to police but defendants did not press charges or direct police to arrest the plaintiff

## Opinion text

Judge WELLS
dissenting in part and concurring in part.
As to plaintiff’s claims for slander and malicious prosecution, I respectfully dissent.
In my opinion, the circumstances surrounding the accusation by defendant’s agent that plaintiff was trespassing and looting were sufficiently disputed to leave a jury question as to whether defendant’s agent acted with a reckless disregard for the truth.
As to the malicious prosecution claim, it is clear to me that defendant’s agent procured the arrest of plaintiff, and that but for the accusations of defendant’s agent, there would have been no prosecution. Again, the question of whether defendant’s agent acted reasonably under all the circumstances is for the jury.
In all other respects, I concur in the majority opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9565446. Public record. Not legal advice.