## Facts

- Newman, a retired printer in his late 60s with health problems, was taken to Big Town Nursing Home by his nephew on September 19, 1968; the nephew signed admission papers and paid one month’s charges.
- The admission agreement stated Newman would not be forced to remain against his will and contained no authorization for involuntary confinement.
- Within days Newman sought to leave; on September 22, 1968, employees stopped him and returned him to the facility.
- Over roughly seven weeks, Newman repeatedly attempted to leave; staff forcibly prevented departures and recaptured him when he got out, including pursuing him in the facility’s vehicle.
- Staff denied Newman access to a telephone, at times restricted visitors, and confiscated his clothes and money, making departure more difficult.
- Newman was moved to a more restrictive area with patients described as senile, addicted, or mentally disturbed, and was placed at times in a restraint chair or similar devices.
- No judicial commitment order or other legal process authorized his confinement.
- Newman escaped on November 11, 1968; he claimed weight loss and mental suffering from the confinement and conditions.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported a finding that the nursing home falsely imprisoned Newman by directly restraining his liberty without legal justification.
2. Whether the evidence supported exemplary damages based on willful, wanton, reckless, or malicious conduct.
3. Whether the jury’s combined award of actual and exemplary damages (about $25,000) was excessive, requiring remittitur.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the finding of false imprisonment because the evidence showed direct restraint of Newman’s physical liberty without adequate legal justification.
- The court held exemplary damages were permitted because the confinement was shown to be intentional and in disregard of Newman’s rights.
- The court found the total damages excessive and conditioned affirmance on a remittitur; after remittitur, the judgment was reformed and affirmed for $13,000.

## Legal Principles

- False imprisonment is the direct restraint of a person’s physical liberty by another without adequate legal justification.
- A private custodial facility lacks authority to detain a competent adult absent lawful process (such as a court order) or another recognized privilege.
- An express agreement that a resident may leave is evidence negating any claimed authority to confine and supporting knowledge of the resident’s right to freedom of movement.
- Exemplary damages may be awarded when the defendant’s confinement is intentional and reflects disregard for the plaintiff’s rights rather than mere negligence.
- Appellate courts may require remittitur when a jury’s combined actual and exemplary damages are excessive in light of the record.

## Conclusion

The court held the nursing home falsely imprisoned Newman by physically and practically preventing him from leaving for weeks without lawful authority, upheld exemplary damages due to intentional rights-violating conduct, and reduced the total recovery as excessive by requiring remittitur and affirming the judgment as modified.


Big Town Nursing Home, Inc. v. Newman, 461 S.W.2d 195 (Tex. Civ. App. 1970)