Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

False Imprisonment Notes

Law Notes > Intentional Torts Notes

This is an extract of our False Imprisonment document, which we sell as part of our Intentional Torts Notes collection written by the top tier of Griffith University students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Intentional Torts Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

TRESPASS


TO

THE

PERSON:


FALSE


IMPRISONMENT

28 |

INTENTIONAL

TORTS

FALSE

IMPRISONMENT

A

direct

and

intentional

total

confinement

of

the

plaintiff

within

an

area

fixed

by


the

defendant

without

legal

justification

or

statutory

authority,

with

an

intention


to

detain

-

Myer

Stores

v

Soo

*

Actionable

per

se,

for

loss

of

dignity,

mental

suffering,

disgrace

and


humiliation


o Proof

of

actual

damage

is

not

required

Considerations:

1. Is

there

a

total

restraint

of

the

plaintiff's

liberty?

2. Is

the

total

restraint

directly,

intentionally

and

voluntarily


affected

by

the

defendant?


The

plaintiff

has

the

burden

of

proving

both

of

these

elements

on

a


balance

of

probabilities


INTENTIONAL

TORTS

|

29

IS

THERE

A

TOTAL

RESTRAINT

OF

THE

PLAINTIFF'S


LIBERTY?

* Restraint

must

be

total


o Partial

restraint

is

not

sufficient

* The

plaintiff

only

has

to

prove

they

were

imprisoned/totally


restrained

and

does

not

have

to

prove

that

it

was

unlawful


o Myer

Stores

Ltd

v

Soo

* Partial

obstruction

of

the

plaintiff,

(where

there

are

reasonable


means

of

escape),

is

not

sufficient

to

constitute

false


imprisonment

* The

mere

obstruction

of

the

plaintiff's

passage

in

a

particular


direction,

(however

inconvenient),

is

not

sufficient


o P

is

free

to

go

elsewhere


SS? Bird

v

Jones

-

blocked

a

doorway.

Not

total


restraint

* The

emphasis

is

on

whether

P

submitted

to

D's

power,


reasonably

thinking

there

was

no

way

of

escape

that

could

be


reasonably

taken


o Symes

v

Mahon


SS? P

acquiesced

to

travelling

with

D


o Burton

v

Davies


SS? Driving

a

car

at

high

speed

to

prevent

a

person


from

escaping

* Means

of

escape

will

be

considered

reasonable

if:


o The

only

way

of

escape

is

dangerous


SS? Burton

v

Davies


o P

does

not

know

the

way

out

and

the

way

out

is

not


apparent


o P

reasonably

believes

than

any

attempt

to

escape

would


involve

a

risk

of

public

embarrassment/mental

harms

or


physical

force

by

D


SS? Symes

v

Mahon


SS? Myer

Stores

v

Soo

* Threat

or

danger

to

property,

distance

and

the

time

it

will

take


to

escape,

as

well

as

the

legality

of

the

escape

are

all

relevant


factors

in

assessing

the

reasonableness

of

the

escape


o McFadzean

v

Construction

Forestry

Mining/Energy

Union

30 |

INTENTIONAL

TORTS

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Intentional Torts Notes.