## Facts

- Ethel M. Dupler worked for Wisconsin Telephone Company as a customer service representative.
- On April 23, 1971, near the end of the workday, supervisor Helen Seubert brought Dupler to supervisor Keith Peterson’s office; the three sat inside with the door closed.
- Dupler was told her employment would end and that she could resign or be fired; she refused to resign.
- Dupler testified that when she tried to stand and leave, Peterson ordered her to sit in a loud, harsh voice, and Seubert stood in front of the door, making Dupler believe she was not free to exit.
- Dupler testified she became nauseated, was allowed to leave briefly to vomit, and was then asked to return to retrieve her purse and continue discussion; she claimed she made repeated attempts to leave but felt prevented by commands and the blocked doorway.
- Defendants denied raising voices, threatening Dupler, or blocking the door, asserting the meeting lasted because Dupler tried to persuade them to reconsider the termination decision.
- Dupler claimed physical illness during the incident and subsequent emotional distress; she offered limited objective proof of economic loss or medical expenses.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a jury finding that Dupler was intentionally confined against her will by physical restraint or implied threat, constituting false imprisonment.
2. Whether the trial court properly reduced the jury’s $7,500 damages award to $500 via remittitur.
3. Whether the trial court retained authority to order a new trial on damages notwithstanding a 60-day post-verdict decision period under Wisconsin procedure.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the jury’s liability verdict for false imprisonment.
- The court held the record supported a finding of intentional confinement by an implied threat of actual physical restraint, even without physical touching.
- The court reversed the $500 judgment as an improper remittitur amount.
- The court remanded for a new trial limited to damages, with an option for Dupler to accept $1,000 in lieu of a new trial.
- The court held the trial court retained authority, under the specific procedural sequence, to order a new trial on damages despite the asserted 60-day limit.

## Legal Principles

- False imprisonment requires: (1) confinement within boundaries set by the defendant, (2) intent to confine, and (3) the plaintiff’s awareness of confinement or resulting harm.
- Confinement may be accomplished by physical force or by an express or implied threat of physical force; the factfinder may infer an implied threat from surrounding circumstances.
- A plaintiff need not risk physical confrontation to establish confinement; the question is whether the circumstances would communicate to a reasonable person that leaving was not permitted.
- On appellate review of evidentiary sufficiency, the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and leaves credibility determinations to the jury.
- Remittitur may be used to correct excessive verdicts, but the reduced amount must reasonably reflect the evidence; a court may condition remittitur on the plaintiff’s acceptance or a new trial on damages.

## Conclusion

The court sustained liability for false imprisonment because a jury could find Dupler was confined by implied threats created by a supervisor’s commands and another supervisor’s position at the doorway, but it rejected the trial court’s drastic damages reduction and ordered a new damages trial unless Dupler accepted $1,000.


Dupler v. Seubert, 69 Wis. 2d 373, 230 N.W.2d 626 (Wis. 1975)