## Facts

- Felix Fojtik, a 45-year-old businessman, entered an inpatient alcohol-treatment program at Charter Hospital of Corpus Christi after an “intervention” involving family, friends, and facility personnel.
- During the intervention, he was told that if he did not admit himself voluntarily, he would be legally committed and brought to the facility in handcuffs.
- Fojtik signed in as a voluntary patient but later alleged the commitment/handcuff threats coerced his consent.
- The facility’s front doors were unlocked, and its written policy allowed patients to leave if they insisted on leaving.
- Early in treatment, some of Fojtik’s requests for temporary passes were denied; later, he received passes allowing him to leave for hours at a time.
- When granted passes, Fojtik left and returned voluntarily, believing compliance would lead to eventual release.
- Fojtik did not unequivocally demand permanent discharge or insist on leaving the facility for good.
- He testified that he felt “effectively locked up” due to staff conduct and the earlier threats, even though he was not physically restrained.

## Issues

1. Whether the summary-judgment record raised a genuine issue of material fact that Charter falsely imprisoned Fojtik by willfully detaining him without consent and without legal authority.
2. Whether alleged threats of involuntary commitment and police involvement, absent physical restraint or denial of an unequivocal request to leave, can constitute restraint sufficient for false imprisonment.
3. Whether a plaintiff must insist on release and have that demand denied to recover for false imprisonment in this treatment-setting context.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the take-nothing summary judgment for Charter.
- It held that, as a matter of law, the evidence did not show willful detention without consent or without authority of law.
- It concluded that the alleged threats and Fojtik’s subjective belief he was not free to leave were insufficient to establish restraint through “just fear of injury.”
- It relied on Fojtik’s voluntary admission, the absence of physical restraint, the unlocked-door/patient-leave policy, his lack of special susceptibility to intimidation, and his failure to insist on discharge.

## Legal Principles

- Under Texas law, false imprisonment requires: (1) willful detention, (2) without consent, and (3) without authority of law.
- Restraint may be established by threats or coercion, but the threats must be sufficiently oppressive to overcome the plaintiff’s free will.
- “Just fear of injury” is an objective requirement; a plaintiff’s subjective feeling of confinement, without evidence that the circumstances would overcome a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position, is insufficient.
- In evaluating whether threats overcome free will, courts may consider the participants’ relative size, age, experience, sex, and physical demeanor, and whether other intimidating circumstances are present.
- Where a person voluntarily enters a facility, is not physically restrained, and does not clearly insist on leaving and have that request denied, the record may fail to raise a fact issue on willful, nonconsensual detention.

## Conclusion

The court held that a voluntary patient’s claim of confinement based primarily on prior threats of commitment and a subjective sense of being unable to leave did not create a triable issue of false imprisonment where the patient was not physically restrained, could leave if he insisted, and never unequivocally demanded discharge.


Fojtik v. Charter Med. Corp., 985 S.W.2d 625 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1999, pet. denied)