LAW1113 â Torts: False Imprisonment
LAW1113 – Torts: False Imprisonment Easy Elements:
False Imprisonment is a “total restraint of the P’s freedom that is directly, and intentionally or negligently, brought about by the voluntary and positive act of the D without lawful justification”.
Actionable per se: •
Don’t need any damage to be proven
•
Voluntary: One that is willed and directed by D’s conscious mind. No compulsion, coercion or self-preservation. Positive: D took active measures and was not merely passive like a door. (Innes v Wylie) More than omission.
Voluntary and Positive act by D:
•
Directness: • • • • •
Interference caused to P must follow directly from D’s act. (Hutchins v Maughan) Was D’s act on its own sufficient to bring about the interference with P? Was D’s act enough to bring about ‘Total Restraint’ of the P’s freedom of movement? If there some intervening cause then the injury suffered will not be direct but consequential (Hutchins v Maughan) Intervening Acts: Voluntary Human Acts (Myers v Soo) or Natural Forces (South Port Corporation v Esso)
Fault:
– –
Intention (i.e. D intended by their conduct to cause the consequence that occurred OR D knows the consequence was “substantially certain” to follow) Recklessness (i.e. D knew the consequence might follow from their conduct but did it anyway);
Henry Ja
1
LAW1113 – Torts: False Imprisonment Total Restraint: • • •
What is required for there to be imprisonment is the ‘total restraint’ of the liberty of the person (P) in question? (Bird v Jones) If a person (P) has the liberty to move in another direction, then they will not be totally restrained. There must be NO reasonable means of escape. Reasonableness is based on whether the means of egress of dangerous or apparent or obvious. If the escape route is not obvious then the means of escape won’t be reasonable. (McFadzean v CFMEU – Factors to consider for reasonable means of egress)
Space and Time: • •
The size of an area where the restraint takes place is not relevant (SA v Lampard-Trevorrow) There may be FI as long as there is total restraint, for however short a time. (Bird v Jones)
Henry Ja
2
False Imprisonment is a “total restraint of the P’s freedom that is directly, and intentionally or negligently, brought about by the voluntary and positive act of the D without lawful justification”.
Actionable per se: •
Don’t need any damage to be proven
•
Voluntary: One that is willed and directed by D’s conscious mind. No compulsion, coercion or self-preservation. Positive: D took active measures and was not merely passive like a door. (Innes v Wylie) More than omission.
Voluntary and Positive act by D:
•
Directness: • • • • •
Interference caused to P must follow directly from D’s act. (Hutchins v Maughan) Was D’s act on its own sufficient to bring about the interference with P? Was D’s act enough to bring about ‘Total Restraint’ of the P’s freedom of movement? If there some intervening cause then the injury suffered will not be direct but consequential (Hutchins v Maughan) Intervening Acts: Voluntary Human Acts (Myers v Soo) or Natural Forces (South Port Corporation v Esso)
Fault:
– –
Intention (i.e. D intended by their conduct to cause the consequence that occurred OR D knows the consequence was “substantially certain” to follow) Recklessness (i.e. D knew the consequence might follow from their conduct but did it anyway);
Henry Ja
1
LAW1113 – Torts: False Imprisonment Total Restraint: • • •
What is required for there to be imprisonment is the ‘total restraint’ of the liberty of the person (P) in question? (Bird v Jones) If a person (P) has the liberty to move in another direction, then they will not be totally restrained. There must be NO reasonable means of escape. Reasonableness is based on whether the means of egress of dangerous or apparent or obvious. If the escape route is not obvious then the means of escape won’t be reasonable. (McFadzean v CFMEU – Factors to consider for reasonable means of egress)
Space and Time: • •
The size of an area where the restraint takes place is not relevant (SA v Lampard-Trevorrow) There may be FI as long as there is total restraint, for however short a time. (Bird v Jones)
Henry Ja
2
