D: Affirmed Your Thoughts: As one of the means of confinement, this case is about improper assertion of legal authority (false arrest). Can also evoke malicious prosecution.
C: Whittaker v. Sandford Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (1912) 110 Me. 77, 85 A. 399 PH: Plaintiff brought an action for false imprisonment. Jury returned a verdict in her favor for $1100. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial. His motion was denied. Defendant appealed. BF: Plaintiff and her husband and the Defendant were a lot of a religious sect. Plaintiff and Defendant were both in Jaffa, Israel. LF: Defendant offered to grant them passage aboard his yacht. Plaintiff expressed concern that Defendant would refuse to let her leave the ship but Defendant promised that they would not be detained. When plaintiff got to the port, Defendant refused to give her the boat. Plaintiff was on the boat for nearly a month. She was allowed to leave the boat on several occasions to go mainland but was accompanied by her husband. I: Did the trial court properly instruct the jury that actual physical force is not required for false imprisonment? R: To recover for false imprisonment, restraint on plaintiff must be physical, not merely moral influence. It must have been actual physical restraint, as in someone intentionally locked into a room would be physically restrained but not necessarily physically forced. It is not necessary that any person should lay hands upon the victim. H: The jury was warranted in finding that the defendant was guilty of unlawful imprisonment. R: Physical restraint can be found in the refusal to grant one the means to overcome a barrier to free movement, particularly when one has sole control over those means. The boats in question were under the control of Defendant and were necessary to provide Plaintiff with the means to reach the shore. There was no practical way for her to go ashore (arrive on American shore) except in defendant’s boat. The agreement was that defendant would bring her to land, by the only means available. He refused her the boat. Which physically restrained her from
free movement and thereby not being able to get to America. He was the barrier; he was the key that was locked on her. D: Affirmed. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Cases C: State Rubbish Collectors Association v. Siliznof Supreme Court of California, 1952 38 Cal.2d 330, 240 P.2d 282. PH: Plaintiff sued Defendant Siliznoff to collect on certain notes. Defendant pleads that note should be cancelled because of duress and lack of consideration. Defendant filed a counterclaim and sought general and punitive damages for alleged “assaults made at him.” Jury returns a verdict in favor of Defendant, giving a judgment of $1,250.00 in general damages (note) and $4,000 in punitive damages. When there are threats to your bodily integrity, that can be IIED.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 63 pages?
- Spring '14
- Appellate court, Trial court