A caregiver of people with disabilities who was accused of stealing a bottle of wine in a Lidl supermarket in Dublin sued the company for moral damages, demanding compensation of at least 75,000 euros. However, the Circuit Civil Court rejected the request and considered legitimate the action of the security that approached it.
According to the Spanish newspaper As Eric Swift, an employee of the company of Enable Ireland, was identified by a security guard at SFC Security as being trying to leave the supermarket with a bottle of wine hidden in the bag. It would only have paid a coffee and followed to the parking lot, where the woman, Geraldine, was about to start with the car.
According to Swift, the security guard ran after him, intercepted him in the garage and ordered him aloud to return to the inside of the store on suspicion of theft. It also claims that it was humiliated in front of other customers in the box and that, when they searched their bag, they found only the coffee and the purchase bead, there was no wine.
Accused says he only changed his ideas
In his statement, Swift admitted to putting a bottle of wine in the bag, claiming that he had chosen it for his wife. Still inside the store, he sent him a message asking if he wanted to drink wine later. Since she replied not, she ended up returning the bottle to the place before paying the coffee.
The episode led to a misunderstanding that, according to his own, caused damage to his image, particularly for working with vulnerable people. Therefore, he advanced with a lawsuit against Lidl and the security company responsible for the vigilante.
On the other hand, the defense maintained that everything resulted from a legitimate mistake. The security guard, Can Uygunyoy, said he saw Swift to hide the wine in the bag, but never saw him returning the bottle to the place. He also denied having directly accused the theft client or assaulted him.
Contradictory versions in the court
Uygunyoy assured that the approach in the parking lot was made with the sole purpose of accompanying him back to the store, asking him if he would have forgotten to pay something. He said he ran because he feared he could not reach him in time.
Lidl’s defense also justified that the customer did not use a basket or cart, which made it difficult to perceive the product. The store director himself apologized for the annoyance, but defended the security procedure.
Judge Geoffrey Shannon considered the coherent testimonies on both sides, but understood that the security version was more credible to the circumstances. He stressed that the professional acted “in the heat of the moment” and that traders have the legal right to protect their assets.
Judge rejects compensation for damages
“I believe Mr. Uygunyoy acted in the heat of the moment, knowing that any delay could be fatal to recover the wine that was stolen, since he did not see Mr. Swift to return it to the place,” said Judge Shannon, quoted by.
The court concluded that there was no bad faith on the part of the security or abusive treatment. Thus, it rejected the claim for compensation submitted by Eric Swift, ending the case in favor of the LIDL and the contracted security company.
Also read:
