We turn now from Assault and Battery to false imprisonment. However, the lecture notes will also finish up our discussion on Assault and Battery.
Reading Notes
Big Town Nursing Home, Inc. v. Newman
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 1970. 461 S.W.2d 195.
Parties
Plaintiff is Newman, defendant is Big Town Nursing Home.
Procedural History
Defendant lost and appealed
Rule
False imprisonment is:
- One person restraining the physical liberty of another
- Without adequate legal justification
Holding
The evidence is ample to sustain the jury’s finding that the plaintiff was falsely imprisoned. Damages were excessive, but otherwise, judgement affirmed.
Facts
Newman was an elderly man with health issues. At times in the past he had been drunk driving but has not driven for a while. He was admitted to a Nursing Home and provided papers that said he would “not be forced to remain in the nursing home against his will for any length of time.” However, when he attempted to leave, they locked him and his clothes up to keep him from doing so. He made several attempts to escape, eventually succeeding.
Analysis
Newman was held against his will when the nursing home explicitly knew that they were not supposed to. They kept him in wing 3 knowing he did not fall into the categories of patients in wing 3. They put him in a restraining chair. In other words, the nursing home physically restrained the liberty of Newman and did so knowing that there was no court order for commitment.
Parvi v. City of Kingston
Court of Appeals of New York, 1977. 41 N.Y2d 553, 362 N.E.2d 960, 394 N.Y.S.2d 161.
Parties
Parvi is the plaintiff and City of Kingston is the defendant.
Procedural History
Plaintiff lost in trial court and appellate division, now the case is before the Court of Appeals.
Rule
False imprisonment requires:
- The victim to know of the dignitary invasion.
Holding
The trial court accurately outlined the rule but applied it erroneously, judgement reversed.
Facts
Parvi was drunk along with his friends. His friends were arguing and Parvi was attempting to calm them down. Rather than arrest Parvi, they took him to the edge of the city, out of the way, and dropped him off. Parvi wandered, was hit by a car, and injured. Finally, and most importantly for this case, he has no recollection of the events that took place.
Analysis
There is a distinction here about being conscious during the confinement vs. having a recollection of the confinement afterwards. If you can prove that they were conscious of confinement during, then you can find false imprisonment. The evidence here supports that finding.
Hardy v. LaBelle’s Distributing Co.
Supreme Court of Montana, 1983. 203 Mont. 263, 661 P.2d 35.
Parties
Labelle’s Distributing Co. is the defendant while Hardy is the plaintiff.
Procedural History
Hardy failed to show false imprisonment in the trial court and appealed.
Question
Did the trial court get it wrong?
Rule
False Imprisonment is
- Restraint of an individual against their will and
- Restraint is unlawful
Holding
The trial court did not err and the judgement is affirmed.
Facts
Hardy was accused of stealing a watch, tricked into walking into a room where the store manager and an officer was present. She denied stealing the watch and agreed to take a lie detector test (which said she told the truth). She was apologized to and released.
Analysis
The trial court did not err because of the willingness of Hardy to clear up the issue. Yes, she was lured to the location of confinement under false pretenses and she felt like she would need to stay. However, not once did she want to leave the situation, saying that she wanted to clear up the misunderstanding. She agreed to the lie detector test voluntarily, did not ask to leave the room, and she was not told that she had to stay.
Additional Notes:
To determine if you are falsely imprisoned the court would consider several things including: Were there threat of force? Was there actual force? Did you go willingly? Did you ask to leave? All of these things are things that could sway a jury one way or another. A moral threat (calling an associate to discredit you) would not be enough to persuade a court. The idea of clearing your name will not be enough to constitute False Imprisonment.
Factors contain, force, threat of force, prevention of escape, detainment. If you felt like you were not free to leave, because of physical restraint, that is false imprisonment. However, if you feel that you can’t leave, because of mental threat, that is moral persuasion (not false imprisonment).
Enright v. Groves
Colorado Court of Appeals, 1977. 39 Colo.App. 39, 560 P.2d 851.
Parties
Enright is plaintiff, Groves is defendant.
Procedural History
Defendant Groves lost and appealed.
Question
Did the police in this case falsely imprison Mrs. Enright?
Rule
False arrest arises when one is taken into custody by a person who claims but does not have proper legal authority. The claim can be valid if
- There is a valid warrant or
- There is probable cause to believe an offense has been committed and that the arrested person committed it.
Holding
The arrest was not related to the ordinance violation so the officer falsely imprisoned the plaintiff. Judgement affirmed.
Facts
Officer noticed a dog off the lease and approached the house. Found Mrs. Enright in car and asked her to produce drivers license. She refused and he arrested her for violating the city dog ordinance.
Analysis
The officer did not make the arrest related to the violation of the law (the dog ordinance). Instead, he made the arrest because she failed to produce a license. Since this is not a violation of law, the arrest being made for that reason is unlawful, there is no legal authority, and false imprisonment occurred.
Additional Notes:
An actual arrest is a reasonable defense against a claim of false imprisonment. However, here, the plaintiff was arrested for something other than what they were convicted for. Therefore, there was false imprisonment.
Whittaker v. Sandford
Supreme Judicial Court of Main, 1912. 100 Me. 77, 85 A. 399.
The parties are not clear. However, the defendants lost and appealed.
Question
Did the court get it right in refusing to provide a new trial?
Rule
Physical restraint is when an individual has no means of making it through a physical barrier.
Holding
A body of water can be seen as a physical restraint. The judgement is affirmed.
Facts
Plaintiff left religious sect but was offered passage to America. She was unwilling because of fear of recommitment efforts. She was assured that she would not be detained on the boat and she accepted passage. However, once there she was not allowed to leave the boat and when she did, she was accompanied. She did not have a personal right to go on shore.
Analysis
The sea can act as a physical restraint. The only way to make it to shore was through a boat and she was not provided access to the boat (although she was entitled to one). In other words, she was locked in a room although free to wander she could not get out. She was therefore falsely imprisoned.
Additional Notes
Finishing Battery
In Fisher, the plate was snatched from his hand. He had no physical injuries but was embarrassed and had some emotional distress. Importantly, from this case, we learn that physical contact to a person does not need to be on the immediate person. Instead, if an object attached to the person then it can be considered a battery. As long as the court can determine that the object is so connected to the plaintiff that it can be connected to the plaintiff. Battery is intended to protect the physical autonomy of a person.
Here, the jury rendered a verdict. After a verdict is given, you need to receive a “judgement”. In this case, the judge chose not to render a judgement in favor of the plaintiff.
Assault
What interest do we have in protecting against assault? The fear a battery is about to occur. Assault is a “state of mind tort.” People should not have to put up with a threat of a harmful contact that is imminent.
Assault requires
- An intent to commit a battery
- Plaintiff’s apprehension that a battery could be committed
- The contact would occur if it was not prevented in some way.
Not every battery requires an assault (because a person could have a battery committed without knowing it could happen).
In Western Union, Sapp cannot be held liable because he was not acting in the scope of his employment. So, the trial court ruling was reversed.
It is annoying because subtle differences could make all the difference in determining if one thing is an assault or another. If a person is 100 yards away and throws a rock at the plaintiff, is it assault? Not from that far, but it could be as the offender gets closer. That would be something for the jury to decide if it was “reasonable”.
False Imprisonment
Newman
Newman’s papers told him that he could leave the nursing home anytime, but when he attempted too, he was restrained. He attempted to “escape” several times before being successful.
False imprisonment is:
- One person restraining the physical liberty of another
- Without adequate legal justification
What interests are we trying to protect against false imprisonment? Freedom from force or the threat of force of physical constraint against your will.
What is a remittitur? When the judge restricts the amount of damages that are to be delivered. Either they accept the remittitur or a new trial would occur.
We learn another rule from Parvi. False imprisonment is designed to protect your frame of mind. So, if you are unaware of the custody, there is no false imprisonment. However, you need to be aware of the confinement at the time. If it is after, the plaintiff can still find false imprisonment if you can prove that confinement was not approved of during. However, there are times when you can be aware of imprisonment, but if there is an easy way to escape (unlocked door in the back), then there is no false imprisonment.
Battery is designed to protect bodily autonomy. Assault and False imprisonment is designed to protect your frame of mind.
Disclaimer
The content contained in this article may contain inaccuracies and is not intended to reflect the opinions, views, beliefs, or practices of any academic professor or publication. Instead, this content is a reflection on the author’s understanding of the law and legal practices.
