Facts
- Plaintiffs conducted partisan political work by comparing voter registration lists with names on mailboxes in multi-unit buildings to identify registrations to challenge.
- Plaintiffs entered, without knocking or ringing, the outer door of defendant’s three-unit building and stood in the vestibule near mailboxes located just inside the entrance.
- Defendant (the owner-occupant) confronted plaintiffs, asked what they were doing, demanded they leave, and requested their names; plaintiffs refused to identify themselves.
- Defendant’s husband called police at defendant’s request.
- While waiting roughly five minutes for police, defendant stood outside or at/near the outer doorway; plaintiffs testified she “blocked” the door.
- Plaintiffs did not ask defendant to move, did not state they wanted to leave, and did not attempt to exit; they remained because they assumed they would have to push past defendant.
- Police arrived, told plaintiffs they were not doing anything wrong, and plaintiffs left.
- Plaintiffs later sued for false imprisonment (and also alleged malicious prosecution and abuse of process); a jury found false imprisonment and awarded damages, and judgment was entered on the verdict.
Issues
- Whether credible evidence supported a finding of false imprisonment where the defendant stood in or near a doorway, but made no threats or physical contact and the plaintiffs neither attempted to leave nor asked to pass.
Decision
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the judgment entered on the jury’s false-imprisonment verdict.
- The court held there was no credible evidence of an intentional, unlawful restraint of plaintiffs’ liberty.
- The court remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint and enter judgment for the defendant.
Legal Principles
- False imprisonment requires an intentional and unlawful restraint of a person’s liberty, amounting to a total confinement without adequate legal justification.
- Confinement may be shown by physical force or by words or conduct that would cause a reasonable person to believe force will be used if the person attempts to leave.
- A plaintiff’s subjective assumption or fear of having to use physical contact to exit, without threats, intimidation, or an actual attempt to leave, is insufficient to prove confinement.
- In reviewing a jury verdict under the “credible evidence” standard, a verdict cannot stand where the evidence, even with favorable inferences, does not satisfy the legal elements of the tort.
Conclusion
Because plaintiffs stayed in the vestibule without requesting passage or attempting to leave and because defendant used no threats, force, or coercive conduct that would objectively indicate confinement, the evidence could not support false imprisonment; the judgment for plaintiffs was reversed and the action dismissed.