## Facts

- Ten-year-old Thomas Drabek and other boys threw snowballs at passing cars near his home along Highway 67 in Williams Bay, Wisconsin.
- A snowball struck Dr. Nanito Sabley’s car; Sabley stopped, exited, and pursued the boys.
- Sabley held Tom by the arm, directed him into Sabley’s car, and drove him into the village to locate a police officer so Tom could identify the other boys.
- After finding an officer, Sabley turned Tom over to the officer, who later took Tom home; the incident lasted roughly 15–20 minutes.
- Tom (by guardian ad litem) sued Sabley for damages for false imprisonment and assault and battery.
- A jury found no false imprisonment and no assault and battery, and judgment was entered dismissing the complaint.

## Issues

1. Whether Sabley’s restraint and removal of Tom constituted false imprisonment and battery.
2. Whether Sabley was privileged to restrain Tom as a reasonable measure to prevent the resumption of dangerous conduct (throwing snowballs at moving cars), and if so, the scope and duration of that privilege.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the judgment dismissing the complaint.
- The court held that, at least from the point Sabley placed Tom in the car and drove him away from the area of Tom’s home into the village, Tom was falsely imprisoned and subjected to a nominal battery as a matter of law.
- The court recognized a limited privilege for a private person to take reasonable steps to prevent imminent harm or the commission of a crime, but held that any such privilege did not justify transporting the child to another location to find police.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine damages attributable to the unjustified period of confinement and the nominal battery.

## Legal Principles

- False imprisonment occurs when a person intentionally restrains another’s physical liberty without lawful justification or privilege.
- Unconsented, offensive touching associated with restraint can constitute battery, even if only nominal damages are available.
- A private person may be privileged, within limits, to interfere with another’s liberty to defend self or others or to prevent the commission of a crime; the privilege extends only to reasonable measures.
- Reasonableness of preventive restraint may present a jury question for initial, on-the-scene conduct, but the privilege can terminate when the restraint becomes unnecessary in time or scope.
- Absent reliance on statutory custody authority or citizen’s arrest, justification turns on common-law privilege, and extended transport to police may exceed what is reasonably necessary to prevent immediate harm.

## Conclusion

The court held that any limited privilege to restrain a child to prevent dangerous conduct did not justify driving the child away from home to locate police; the resulting confinement and arm-holding constituted false imprisonment and nominal battery, requiring a remand for a damages determination.


Drabek v. Sabley, 31 Wis. 2d 184, 142 N.W.2d 798 (Wis. 1966)