👀
Torts • Intentional Torts
TORT#003
Legal Definition
False imprisonment is (1) an act that intentionally confines someone within boundaries fixed by the actor, *(2)* directly or indirectly resulting in such confinement, and *(3)* the confined person is either conscious of the confinement or harmed by it.
Plain English Explanation
"Imprisonment" occurs when a person is held captive, restricting their freedom of movement. There are many legitimate reasons to imprison someone, such as when they are found guilty of a crime and imprisoned by the government, or even when a person is being temporarily imprisoned by another citizen during a valid citizen's arrest or detainment. False imprisonment is an unjustified imprisonment. So how do you spot one?
Generally speaking, although there are many limitations on a person's right to enter an area, there are few reasons to ever prevent a person from leaving an area. For example, you have no right to enter any private home that you wish, but once you are allowed into a home, it is your right to leave whenever you want.
In other words, false imprisonment is a denial of someone's desire to exit a space. Any time a person wants to leave a confined space, but their ability is blocked or prevented either practically (e.g., having to crawl through a sewer pipe), physically (e.g., a locked door), or psychologically (e.g., threat of harm), then you should assess whether or not false imprisonment has occurred.
Note that the consciousness of the victim matters. If a person is unconscious (e.g., passed out or asleep) during their false imprisonment (or simply unaware that they are being imprisoned/confined), they will only have a claim if they are harmed by it. On the flip side, if the person is aware of the situation, they need not be harmed by the situation.
Finally, always look for defenses to false imprisonment to justify the defendant's actions.
Generally speaking, although there are many limitations on a person's right to enter an area, there are few reasons to ever prevent a person from leaving an area. For example, you have no right to enter any private home that you wish, but once you are allowed into a home, it is your right to leave whenever you want.
In other words, false imprisonment is a denial of someone's desire to exit a space. Any time a person wants to leave a confined space, but their ability is blocked or prevented either practically (e.g., having to crawl through a sewer pipe), physically (e.g., a locked door), or psychologically (e.g., threat of harm), then you should assess whether or not false imprisonment has occurred.
Note that the consciousness of the victim matters. If a person is unconscious (e.g., passed out or asleep) during their false imprisonment (or simply unaware that they are being imprisoned/confined), they will only have a claim if they are harmed by it. On the flip side, if the person is aware of the situation, they need not be harmed by the situation.
Finally, always look for defenses to false imprisonment to justify the defendant's actions.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Sam is an innocent person who is identified by witnesses as being the perpetrator of a crime. Sam is arrested, processed, and put into jail. Result: Though Sam may be erroneously imprisoned, he was not falsely imprisoned for the purpose of the tort.
Hypo 2: Sam is staying the night at Bob's house. Bob offers Sam his guest room. While Sam is getting ready for bed, Bob closes the door to Sam's room, locks it from the outside, seals the door with putty, and places a bookshelf in front of the door. Sam finishes getting ready, hops in bed, and falls asleep without ever checking the door. In the morning, before Sam wakes up, Bob regrets his actions, moves the bookshelf, unseals the door, and unlocks the door. When Sam wakes up, he gets ready, thanks Bob for letting him stay, and leaves. Result: Because Sam was never aware that he was being imprisoned by Bob, he was not falsely imprisoned.
Hypo 3: Same general fact pattern as Hypo 2, except while Sam sleeps, he experiences monoxide poisoning while he sleeps due to the lack of airflow into the room from Bob sealing the door.Result: Even though Sam was unaware of his confinement, because his confinement caused him harm, Bob has committed false imprisonment against Sam.
Hypo 4: Bob is driving his car and picks up Sam. They get in an argument and pull over into a parking lot. Bob wants to keep arguing, but Sam wants to leave. Bob locks the door of the car. Result: Bob may have falsely imprisoned Sam, but likely did not. In most circumstances, even though Bob locked the doors, Sam could easily unlock his door and exit the vehicle.
Hypo 5: Bob is driving his car and picks up Sam. They get in an argument and pull over into a parking lot. Bob wants to keep arguing, but Sam wants to leave. Before Sam can exit the car, Bob begins driving. Result: Bob has falsely imprisoned Sam. Even though Sam could unlock the door and jump out of a moving vehicle, the law does not require him to do so. The law requires that Bob accommodate Sam's safe departure from the confined space, and by not stopping the car, Bob has created a circumstance that practically prevents Sam (or any reasonable person) from leaving, even if technically or physically possible.
Hypo 6: Sam goes to the mall and shops. He picks out some shirts he likes, goes into the changing room, and falls asleep. That night, security locks up not realizing Sam is in the changing room. Sam wakes up to find himself locked in the mall. Result: Though Sam is unable to exit the mall, his confinement was not intentional, and thus he was not falsely imprisoned.
Hypo 2: Sam is staying the night at Bob's house. Bob offers Sam his guest room. While Sam is getting ready for bed, Bob closes the door to Sam's room, locks it from the outside, seals the door with putty, and places a bookshelf in front of the door. Sam finishes getting ready, hops in bed, and falls asleep without ever checking the door. In the morning, before Sam wakes up, Bob regrets his actions, moves the bookshelf, unseals the door, and unlocks the door. When Sam wakes up, he gets ready, thanks Bob for letting him stay, and leaves. Result: Because Sam was never aware that he was being imprisoned by Bob, he was not falsely imprisoned.
Hypo 3: Same general fact pattern as Hypo 2, except while Sam sleeps, he experiences monoxide poisoning while he sleeps due to the lack of airflow into the room from Bob sealing the door.Result: Even though Sam was unaware of his confinement, because his confinement caused him harm, Bob has committed false imprisonment against Sam.
Hypo 4: Bob is driving his car and picks up Sam. They get in an argument and pull over into a parking lot. Bob wants to keep arguing, but Sam wants to leave. Bob locks the door of the car. Result: Bob may have falsely imprisoned Sam, but likely did not. In most circumstances, even though Bob locked the doors, Sam could easily unlock his door and exit the vehicle.
Hypo 5: Bob is driving his car and picks up Sam. They get in an argument and pull over into a parking lot. Bob wants to keep arguing, but Sam wants to leave. Before Sam can exit the car, Bob begins driving. Result: Bob has falsely imprisoned Sam. Even though Sam could unlock the door and jump out of a moving vehicle, the law does not require him to do so. The law requires that Bob accommodate Sam's safe departure from the confined space, and by not stopping the car, Bob has created a circumstance that practically prevents Sam (or any reasonable person) from leaving, even if technically or physically possible.
Hypo 6: Sam goes to the mall and shops. He picks out some shirts he likes, goes into the changing room, and falls asleep. That night, security locks up not realizing Sam is in the changing room. Sam wakes up to find himself locked in the mall. Result: Though Sam is unable to exit the mall, his confinement was not intentional, and thus he was not falsely imprisoned.
Visual Aids
