Where the alleged detention is effected by a threat P must demonstrate that the

Where the alleged detention is effected by a threat p

This preview shows page 36 - 37 out of 52 pages.

*Where the alleged detention is effected by a threat, P must demonstrate that the threat was such as would inspire in the P a just fear of injury to his person, reputation or property. ELEMENTS: #4: CONFINEMENT: “ when tortfeasor cuases victim to b within bounded physical space DEPENDS ON HOW VULNERBALE P is and OPPRESIVE CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENT: ( Fotjik v. Charter): alcoholic claims to b falsely imprisoned in hospital. P should have know he was not being confined. (issue of restraint not of P’s subjective interpretation but if he had “just fear of injury” Need 3 elements: 1) Willful detention by 2) Without consent of detainee 3) without authority of law. When threat is alleged, ¶ must prove just fear of injury to person, reputation, or property. o *Threats to call the police generally don’t count Factors such as relative size, age, experience, sex, or physical demeanor count. False Imprisonment No False Imprisonment Wilson v. Houston Funeral Home (in non-stationary place) Confinement occurred when deceased’s relatives were, against their wishes, driven by a funeral home employee in a company limo to a bank rather than the burial site. **Fojtik v. Charter Med. Corp. (Tex. 1999) While P may have considered himself restrained; the issue is not P’s subjective interpretation of his situation, but rather whether had a “just fear of injury.” Confinement can occur even absent the impossibility of departure, if an exit is available but can only be used in a manner that poses physical harm to him or others, he is confined. Shen v. Leo A. Daly Co. ((boundaries too broad to count as confinement) Employee who was barred form leaving Taiwan by the government b/c of his employer’s willful and unjustified refusal to file certain papers with the government was not “confined” by the employer’s misconduct. Ball v. Wal-mart If the victim reasonably perceives that the tortfeasor will seek to prevent her from leaving, she is confined. Shopper who reasonably believed D store owner would take steps physically to prevent her from leaving was confined Smith v. Comair, Inc. (baring traveler from particular destination) Airline’s refusal to allow a connecting passenger to board any flights other than a flight that would return him to the original city does not constitute confinement. National Bond & Inv. Co. v. Whithorn Threat to detain P’s children or seize P’s property if P were to leave is confinement. (threat to seize P’s car) Lloyd v. Jefferson : No confinement when daughter, was barred by an officer from suing the entrance that her father went through and told to use another one. Jacques v. Childs Dining Hall Co. Risk of loss of reputation or embarrassment may also be sufficient for confinement. (customer openly accused of leaving w.out paying bill “confined” for prd it took to estsblish that accusation was unfounded. Customer leaving would have been viwed as admission of guilt by others Caswell v. BJ’s Wholesale Co If victim can exit w only minimal inconvenience, or there is no reason to suppose that his effort to exit will be met with resistance, there is no confinement.
Image of page 36
Image of page 37

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 52 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture