September 12th Case and Notes

September 12th Case and Notes - September 12, 2008...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
September 12, 2008 Intentional Torts False Imprisonment: A restraint of a person in a bounded area without justification or consent. Freedom from confinement against will Do not have to be touched and do not have to apprehend contact If I take you out on a boat and you can’t swim, false imprisonment Fall asleep in class, and teacher leaves and locks all the doors and comes back in half an hour and you are still sleeping. Not FI because you were sleeping and not aware. What if you woke up and tried the doors, and went back to sleep and doesn’t remember it. Yes FI because she tried to get out and at that point she was conscious of her false imprisonment. Victim must be aware that they are being confined At Walmart and store detective comes up and says you stole something and they take you to the back room and someone stands at the door. Not FI b/c you went to the room voluntarily in order to clear your good name. Does not require walls, need a confinement to a space. If a teacher took you to Capitol lawn and confined you to a circle or he would hit you. Big Town Nursing Home, Inc v. Newman Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 1970 Law: False imprisonment occurs when one person directly restrains another person’s physical freedom without legal justification. Punitive damages can be awarded if the defendant intentionally violates the rights of the plaintiff. Facts: Plaintiff was initially take to a rest home by his nephew, who signed admission papers, which stated that patient “will not be forced to remain in the nursing home against his will for any length of time.” Plaintiff was retired printer, 67 with Parkinson’s, arthritis, heart trouble, a voice impediment, and a hiatal hernia. Shortly after arriving Plaintiff attempted to leave and call a cab. The employees refused to allow and locked the plaintiff’s cloth up. Plaintiff attempted to physically leave and was restrained and taped into a chair, locked up in the mental wing, and over a period of 51 days refused to leave. Plaintiff subsequently escaped after 51 days. He had lost 30 lbs. Reasoning: The defendant knew that plaintiff was not a mental patient, alcoholic, drug addict, and locked him up with the same. Locked and restrained the plaintiff to a chair against his will. Prevented him from using the telephone, locked up his clothes, and detained him for 51 days when he asked to be released, despite the admission agreement stating he would not be held against his will for any length of time.Was directly restrained of his physical liberties by the nursing home. Parkinson’s played a part in the determination that he was a harm to himself or others. Failure to name the nephew as co- defendant. Issue: Whether the acts against the plaintiff constitute false imprisonment?
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 11

September 12th Case and Notes - September 12, 2008...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online