Dey's vs. Mr. Cane

Dey's vs. Mr. Cane - probable cause What the Dey’s...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Andrew Lazarow Can the Dey’s employee be held liable for false imprisonment while detaining Mr. Cane? Define Tort. Explain how there is intentional and unintentional. False imprisonment is the intentional confinement or restraint of another person’s activities without justification. The shopkeeper rule allows merchants to reasonably detain customers if there is probable cause. If the shopkeeper rule is enacted it must be reasonable in time and manner. Talk about the defenses of false imprisonment. When the Dey’s employee restrained Mr. Cane he believed that Mr. Cane was stealing a scarf which gave him justification because of the shopkeeper rule which gives jurisdiction if there is
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: probable cause. What the Dey’s employee didn’t do was be reasonable in the manner in which he was detained. Although Mr. Cane was quickly released he was shouted at and embarrassed which caused him to have a heart attack. Be more specific with everything above. Explain things like how do I know he was confined. In conclusion because the Dey’s employee was not reasonable in the manner in which he detained Mr. Cane, he violated the shopkeeper rule meaning the Dey’s employee is liable for false imprisonment. Duty Breach of duty Causation injury...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 01/18/2012 for the course LPP 255 taught by Professor Staff during the Spring '08 term at Syracuse.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online