## Facts

- Debra Jo Hardy worked as a temporary jewelry sales clerk at a retail store operated by LaBelle’s Distributing Company.
- Another employee reported that she believed Hardy stole a watch.
- An assistant manager told Hardy she would receive a routine “tour” and led her into the showroom manager’s office, closing the door.
- Hardy was confronted with the theft accusation and questioned for approximately 20–45 minutes.
- Testimony conflicted about who was in the office, but Hardy testified that a loss prevention manager and at least one uniformed police officer were present.
- Hardy denied theft and agreed to take a polygraph examination.
- Hardy did not ask to leave, did not attempt to leave, and was not told she could not leave; no physical restraint was used and no explicit threats were made.
- The polygraph supported Hardy’s denial; management and the accusing employee apologized and told Hardy she could continue working.
- Hardy left after a brief argument with the accusing employee and later sued for false imprisonment.
- Hardy testified she would have entered the office even if she had known the true purpose was questioning about the alleged theft.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict that Hardy was not unlawfully restrained against her will, defeating her false imprisonment claim.
2. Whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury on false imprisonment by giving incorrect or incomplete instructions or by refusing Hardy’s proposed instructions.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed the judgment entered on the jury’s defense verdict.
- The court held there was substantial evidence from which the jury could find no unlawful restraint against Hardy’s will.
- The court held the jury instructions, considered as a whole, correctly stated the law of false imprisonment; refusal of additional proposed instructions was not error.

## Legal Principles

- False imprisonment requires (1) restraint of a person against the person’s will and (2) unlawfulness of the restraint.
- Restraint may be imposed by force, threats, or words or acts that reasonably cause a person to fear disregarding them, but a plaintiff’s subjective feeling of compulsion is insufficient without objective conduct indicating restraint.
- Investigatory questioning in a private office, including in the presence of store security or police, does not establish false imprisonment absent force, threats, or express or implied assertions that the person is not free to leave.
- On appellate review of a jury verdict, the court asks whether substantial evidence supports the verdict and views the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party.
- Alleged instructional error is evaluated by reading the instructions as a whole; refusal of duplicative or legally unsupported instructions is proper.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a defense verdict because the evidence permitted a finding that Hardy voluntarily cooperated and was not unlawfully restrained; without force, threats, or an asserted bar to leaving, the detention element of false imprisonment was not proved, and the jury was properly instructed.


Hardy v. LaBelle’s Distrib. Co., 203 Mont. 263, 661 P.2d 35 (Mont. 1983)