False Imprisonment Flashcards
Coblyn v. Kennedy’s Inc.
i. Facts
1) P a 70 yo man walked into the D shop wearing an asctot (scarf) around his neck, after finalizing his purchase he leaves, an employee sees him pull the same scarf from his pocket, and believing he stole it chases after him and escorts him by the arm back to the store. In the process of returning the D suffered from a heart attack.
ii. Issue:
1) Did the P’s actions of restraining the D constitute a false imprisonment
iii. Holding
1) Yes the manner in which the D restrained the P was not reasonable nor did he have reasonable grounds on which to restrain the P
a) Time P was restarined was not the issue
b) Grounds are reasonable is an objective test
c) Objective standard is the criterion for determining probable cause or reasonable grounds in malicious prosecution and false arrest cases
Bird v. Jones
i. Facts
1) P wished to pass along a certain part of the highway that was blocked off because of a set of erected bleachers. The D and the police prevented him from going down that section of the highway, but left him free to retreat
ii. Issue
1) In limiting P’s freedom to enter the highway, did the D falsely imprison him?
iii. Holding
1) Because the P had the freedom to retreat and go anywhere else he wanted, it cannot constitute False imprisonment.
a) Imprisonment included the notion of restraint within some limits defined by will or power different than your own.
iv. Notes
1) The D forced the P to take a forced detour, but did not infringe upon his free movement elsewhere
2) He sued for false imprisonment rather than false detour, because imprisonment is an intentional tort and can get punitive damages.
3) Compensatory damages, would be far less for this guys time to detour his route
4) Dissent
a) Imprisonment is unlawfully preventing me from what I have the legal right to do.
b) A boundary is not necessarily needed to do that
5) What was the D trying to do?
a) Prevent him from going in particular direction
Perhaps an embarrassing route could be considered imprisonment, such as taking someone’s clothes.
Whitaker v Sandford
i. Facts
1) P, is a passenger on a yacht free to go anywhere they want on the yacht but not when the yacht was docked
ii. Holding
1) Imprisoned to yacht so long as they are denied access to the shore by boat
a) Damages reduced from 1100 to 500 because not held in close confinement
Case lacks elements of humiliation and disgrace
SS 2-36
A by an invalde process restrains B within prison limits which are coterminous with the boundaries of a considerable town. A has confined B
Taylor v. Johnson
i. Facts
1) D believed that P to have a false prescription and kept him waiting to go and shop in Walmart while he called the police. Turns out it was a good prescription. Court originally awarded 40,000$ in damages.
ii. Holding
D was not liable for false imprisonment, because he never detained the individual.
Sindle v New York City Transit Authority
i. D is driving a bus full of children who are damaging property and insulting the driver. The driver abandoned the usual route to go to the police station. On the way there, the P jumped out of the window and was run over by the wheels
ii. Issue:
1) Was the D justified in imprisoning the children in the bus.
iii. Holding
1) Matter for the Jury to decid3e
a) Drivers considerations are relevant to possible justification
b) Effected imprisonment for the purpose of preventing personal injuries and or damage to real or personal property
c) Driver has a duty to take reasonable measures for the safety and protection of the bus and children
Herd v Weardale Steel
i. Facts
1) P voluntarily entered the P’s mine shaft where he was employed, Five hours before his shift ended he quit, and demanded that he be brought to the surface. D did not have an elevator to take him until a little while later.
ii. Issue:
1) Did the P waive his right to False imprisonment claim by choosing to enter the mineshaft?
iii. Holding
1) Yes, he chose to enter the mineshaft under the conditions and he had no right to call upon the D to expend more transporting cost than he had originally agreed to.
iv. Notes
1) Were the D privileged to imprison the P in the shaft?
a) Courts said yes they were
Could have been different had the miner believed there were unsafe conditions which he did not consent to
Chellen v. John Pickle Co.
i. Holding
The D were liable for false imprisonment by holding the workers travel documents hostage thereby limiting their mobility
Zavala v. Wal-Mart
i. Holding
1) Minimal command of English made it hard for the individuals to leave the stores they worked in because the managers kept them locked for safety reasons, the court held them not liable because the managers were often available to unlock the doors.
