The Tort of False Imprisonment

False imprisonment refers to a situation in which one person has unlawfully confined or restricted
the movement of another. In the authoritative text Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, the
authors note that the tort of false imprisonment "protects the personal interest in freedom from
restraint of movement."
What are the Elements of False Imprisonment?
When a person brings a personal injury lawsuit for the tort of false imprisonment, the plaintiff bears
the burden of proving each element, or component part, of the tort by a preponderance of the
evidence. Restatement (Second) of Torts 35 provides that the elements of false imprisonment are:
An act that completely confines the plaintiff within fixed boundaries set by the defendant;
The intent to confine the plaintiff or a third party;
Causation, meaning the defendant's act caused the plaintiff's confinement; and
The plaintiff's awareness of his or her confinement, or, in the absence of awareness, actual harm
resulting from the confinement.
Examining the Elements of False Imprisonment
The confinement requirement has a specific meaning in the context of the tort of false imprisonment.
Confinement does not necessarily mean actual incarceration, or even placing someone in a closed
room. William P. Statsky, author of Torts: Personal Injury Litigation, explains that confinement
means to restrain the plaintiff's movement by:
Physical barriers,
Physical force,
The threat of present physical force,
The assertion of legal authority to confine, or
Refusing to release the plaintiff contrary to a legal duty to do so.
To establish the element of intent, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant had a desire to confine
the plaintiff, or knew with substantial certainty that confinement would result from the defendant's
actions. If the defendant was merely negligent in causing the plaintiff's confinement, the intentional
tort of false imprisonment has not been committed. In that case, the plaintiff may have a cause of
action for negligent confinement.
This is an important distinction because a negligence lawsuit for the confinement would require
proof of actual damages (for example, physical or mental injury, loss of income resulting from the
confinement, etc.). By contrast, for the tort of false imprisonment, no more damage than the
confinement itself and the plaintiff's awareness of the confinement need be shown. It is presumed
that the plaintiff has suffered damage.
Compensatory and Punitive Damages for False Imprisonment
A person who believes he or she has been subjected to intentional false imprisonment may choose to
bring a personal injury lawsuit seeking compensation. The plaintiff does not have to prove actual
harm to establish a prima facie case of false imprisonment unless he or she was unaware of the
confinement.
Compensatory damages for false imprisonment may include compensation for such things as
humiliation, injury to the plaintiff's reputation, illness or other discomfort, loss of earnings, or
damage to personal property due to the confinement. If the defendant acted with hatred or malice,
the plaintiff may also recover punitive damages. Whether a plaintiff recovers any type of damages in
a false imprisonment lawsuit will depend on the particular facts of the case.
Personal Injury Attorneys
All tort claims are subject to statutory time limits, and those time limits differ from state to state. For
that reason, anyone who believes he or she has a personal injury claim for the tort of false
imprisonment should consult with an experienced personal injury lawyer in his or her local area as
soon as possible to protect his or her rights.
Disclaimer: This article is in no way intended as legal advice. For help with specific legal issues, one
should contact a licensed attorney in one's local area.
Sources:
W. Page Keeton, Dan B. Dobbs, Robert E. Keeton & David G. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on the Law
of Torts (5th ed., West 1984)
William P. Statsky, Torts: Personal Injury Litigation (4th ed., Delmar 2001); Restatement (Second) of
Torts 35 (1965).