Hardy v. LaBelle’s
Distributing Co.
Supreme Court of
203
Prosser, p. 41-43.
Facts: The defendants hired Ms. Hardy as a temp. She fell under suspicion of theft. She was brought into the showroom manager’s
office under the pretense of getting a tour of the store. Several employees and a policeman were in the
office, and they informed Ms. Hardy of the accusation of theft. She denied the allegation and agreed to take
a lie detector test. The test supported
her denial of the theft.
Procedural Posture: Ms. Hardy brought an action for false imprisonment,
claiming she had been kept in the office against her will. The trial court dismissed the suit, and Hardy
appealed.
Issue: Do the facts support a verdict of false imprisonment
against the defendants?
Rule: In order to prove false imprisonment, the plaintiff
must show he was restrained unlawfully and against his will.
Analysis: Hardy
admitted that even though she felt compelled to stay in the office, she wanted
to stay anyway. Therefore, the court
argues, it is reasonable for a jury to find that the plaintiff was not held
against her will.
Conclusion: The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in
favor of the defendants.
Notes and Questions
1.
If
there is no threat or use of physical force, there is no false
imprisonment. Therefore, there is no
false imprisonment until she is confined against her will in the car.
2.
It’s
hard to reconcile these two cases, but there does seem to be one
difference. The first case seems to
imply that the plaintiff has the right to leave the premises freely with
property that is rightfully hers. In the
second case, the property is not rightfully the plaintiff’s because the
defendant has a lien on it.
3.
Most
intentional torts seem to require some kind of actual force or threat of
force. Therefore, it would seem that the
case where the defendant threatens never to speak to the plaintiff again would
not constitute false imprisonment, because there’s no threat of force.
1.
This
seems to confirm my suspicion that false imprisonment is intimately tied to the
threat of force.
2.
This
would seem like a necessary privilege in terms of policy.