That's because I accidentally pasted the title for URL. Fixed now.
I do not think the extent of injury should matter. Had he had a heart attack during the confrontation, should the store be on the hook for "wrongful death"?
The perp sustained injuries while the LPOs tried to restrain him until the police arrived. He resisted and was unlucky in that him falling down caused significant injuries. But without his resisting and without him shoplifting he would not have sustained any injuries.
Now had the LPOs sought to inflict deliberate injury that would be separate assault and battery. But criminals should not get to sue for injuries sustained during the crime itself. I mean, given US tort law Home Alone 2 should have been a courtroom drama where Harry and Marv sue the McAllisters for millions. Homeless Alone is the third installment where they are all, well, homeless having lost their house to the burglars ...
The company should pay for his bad luck since such luck wouldn't have come about had people under the company's employ not caused it.
I'm testing that opinion, not offering it as a solidified opinion.
Very briefly, here's how the issue was likely framed: was the detainment and nature of the detainment within the scope of the employee's job description? If it was not, then you have either an intentional tort or some form of negligence. For the former, did person A commit act X that was foreseeably likely to cause Y damage to person B? If so, then it was an intentional act and damages are appropriate.
Further, the property did not belong to the person who assaulted the thief. One can actually pursue another who has stolen their property provided it happens in that moment (aka "hot pursuit"). But that's not what happened here. The thief took a thing and while doing so presented no immediate danger to anyone and had not stolen any of their personal property. And while it's not unlawful to physically detain a shoplifter, it is unlawful to nearly kill them while doing so.
If it was under a theory of negligence, then the question(s) is this: was there a duty was owed, was that duty breached, was there a harm done, and would a reasonable person in the defendant's position have done the same thing?
Negligence generally falls under accidental, rather than intentional theories. And in case, if it did amount amount to negligence, you'd posit what's called a respondent superior theory---the employer is responsible for what his employees do. It's well settled law.
I didn't read the article because there's no need. The press is shockingly bad at describing the law and legal proceedings.
As for American tort law, it works pretty well, despite stories like this. Even this story isn't that bad when you know the logic and reasoning behind why tort law is structured the way it is. Once in a while you'll hear a story about someone getting some ridiculous sum for seemingly minor damages, but those are rare in comparison to what usually happens--and even then people don't know the real story because the press misreports it.
The best example is the elderly woman who got burned by the McDonald's coffee and received several million dollars in damages for it. To this day many still don't know that the woman had 2nd and 3rd degree burns on her vagina and anus and required skin grafting in order to repair the damage, and that that branch had been warned previously about the temperature of its coffee. The pictures of the physical damages are hideous.
Anyway, I didn't mean to go on for so long, but trust me, you got the very short version of it.
