FALSE IMPRISONMENT: I. Prima Facie Case: A Confinement Can Involve Anguish: Act (physical and volitional); Confinement (to bounded area created by ∆); Causing (cause-in-fact); Intent (intention has to be to confine ∏ in bounded/fixed area-negligence not enough); Awareness or Harm (∏ must be aware of confinement OR harmed by it). Def. has to do some volitional/physical act w/intent to Pl. or 3rd Party (there is transferred intent here.) a) intent=willful or substantial certainty and intent must be about consequences of confinement. But-for causation a) Physical consequence and/or b) Mental consequence-i.e. Pl. must be aware of the confinement (mental) or physically harmed by it (physical). *Physical force is not required-but a physical act is* -Moral restraint is not sufficient to substantiate cause of action for FI. -If there is no reasonable/easy means of escape then=confinement. But, If there IS some reasonable/easy means of escape AND ∏ knows about it-then there is NO confinement. Ex. A locks B in basement w/no windows or other doors=confinement. A locks B in basement that has 2 doors, one of which is visibly wide open, no confinement here. II. Damages: -can be compensatory, including pain and suffering, nominal, or punitive. Further, ∏ can recover for injuries he suffered while attempting a reasonable escape-however, if the escape attempt is unreasonable (remember kids jumping out of a moving bus!) then the ∆ will not be liable for those damages. -If the Pl. is unlawfully confined he still has to act reasonably and cannot negate his duty to take reasonable care of himself; otherwise this can be negligence and any damages/injuries resulting from such negligence on the part of the Pl. cannot be recovered. Ex. School bus-driver taking kids to police station for vandalism, kids jumped out of bus windows while bus was still moving, case reversed to have jury decide whether or not kids actions were negligent (i.e. they didn’t exercise reasonable care). If the jury finds kids actions negligent, then no damages for bodily injuries resulting from that negligence can be recovered. CASES & EXAMPLES: Religious Sect on Yacht: FI found here b/c Pl. was kept on a yacht anchored out in the ocean offshore-only available means to get off yacht was small rowboat that Def. denied her use of. KEY CONCEPTS: Ct. likened situation to a hypo: if A turns key and locks B in a 4-walled room=confinement. Here the rowboat was the key-Def. denied access, knowingly preventing Pl. from leaving yacht, and his actions resulted in Pl. being “imprisoned” on that yacht. No physical force against the Pl. person necessary! Stuck in Taiwan Case: Pl. alleged that Def. terminated his employment and then by Def. actions caused Gov. of Taiwan to prevent Pl. from leaving country. Ct. said no FI existed here b/c scope of supposed imprisonment was far too large-it
was a whole country! Ct. recognized the difficulty is assigning what boundaries are sufficient to establish FI, but clearly a country’s boundaries are too large. DEFENSES: -Only 1=merchant privilege. Store owner/proprietor can detain a person if that person is suspected of shoplifting. However, the confinement must be for a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner, and the merchant must have reasonable grounds for detaining the suspect. Reasonable grounds concept established by Legislature and is meant to be interpreted in the phrase’s everyday meaning. Merchant privilege subject to OBJECTIVE test, i.e. would a reasonably prudent, intelligent and cautious person see a basis to detain suspect in that particular instance and considering the surrounding circumstances? Ex. Old man in Dept. store case=merchant had no reasonable grounds to detain old man, even though the detention was reasonable in manner and time. The subjective perception of the merchant is not the question, instead must apply the “reasonable person” test-b/c merchant had no right to detain and he did so in a physically threatening manner, FI existed. KEY CONCEPT: If Def. demonstrates a physical power that can be avoided only by submission and if this is accompanied by any amount of force=false imprisonment.