LAWS 204 - False Imprisonment

Front

Define the tort of false imprisonment.

Back

Any postitive action taken by the defendant, that leads to the plaintiff being bound to an enclosed area, can qualify as false imprisonment if the defendant had the intention to prohibit the plaintiff's freedom by constraining them to an enclosed space.

Front

Explain the first element of this tort.

Back

Positive acts include physical detainment as well as threats, that force the plaintiff to be confined to an enclosed space, due to the fear of violence!

Front

Can ommisions constitute positive acts? Why/why not?

Back

An ommision can constitute as a positive act for the purposes of the tort of false imprisonment, if the defendant has a relationship of responsibility to the plaintiff (e.g. a prison gaurd has a relationship of responsibility to inmates, and If they forget to release a prisoner in due time, then they will be liable under the tort of false imprisonment).

Front

What did the court hold in the case of Herd?

Back

In the case of herd, the court denied claims of false imprisonment as the defendant did not commit a positive act to confine the plaintiff to an eclosed area. The defendant went down into the mine on their own accord, and so the first element of the tort of false imprisonment was not met, and therefore the claim failed.

Front

Explain the second element of the tort of negligence.

Back

Bounded area means confinement to a confined area. In other words, keeping people out of a confined area is not false imprisonment.

Front

What is a fact scenario that will not meet the second element of the tort of negligence?

Back

If the plaintiff is aware of a reasonable means of escape from a confined area, then they cannot bring forth claims of false imprisonment, as this fact scenario will not meet the second element of the tort of negligence.

Front

Define 'reasonable means of escape'.

Back

Anything that subjects the plaintiff to risk of injury, disease or humiliation is not a reasonable means of escape.

Front

How do the courts assess, as to whether or not the plaintiff had access to a 'reasonable means of escape'?

Back

The courts assess the reasonableness of the means of escape by determining, whether, the means of escape is reasonably discoverable, and will take a reasonable amount of time to make use of.

Front

What did the court hold in the case of Bird v Jones?

Back

In the case of Bird v Jones, the court held that the plaintiff was at fault for not taking a reasonable means of escape and therefore had no claim for false imprisonment.

Front

What is an element that the court does not consider, in false imprisonment disputes? Why?

Back

In the case of Meering, the court held that the court does not consider as to whether or not the plaintiff was aware of the false imprisonment. In other words, it does not matter, whether or not the plaintiff was aware of the false imprisonment.