## Facts

- William Whithorn purchased an automobile under a conditional sales contract held by National Bond & Investment Company.
- Believing Whithorn was in default, National Bond sent two employees to repossess the car.
- The employees followed Whithorn, signaled him to pull off the road, and told him they intended to retake the vehicle.
- Whithorn stayed in the driver’s seat, refused to surrender the car, and demanded proof of authority.
- The employees summoned a wrecker and directed it to tow the car while Whithorn remained inside.
- One employee opened the hood and removed a distributor wire, disabling the car to prevent Whithorn from driving away.
- The wrecker moved the car approximately 75–100 feet with Whithorn still inside until Whithorn managed to stop the movement.
- Whithorn sued National Bond for false imprisonment based on its employees’ conduct during the attempted repossession.
- A jury awarded Whithorn $700 compensatory damages and $900 punitive damages; National Bond appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether disabling and towing an automobile while the owner remains inside, effectively compelling him to stay with the car to avoid losing it, constitutes false imprisonment.
2. Whether the evidence supported submitting false imprisonment to the jury and sustaining compensatory and punitive damages.
3. Whether the verdict, including punitive damages, was excessive requiring reversal or remittitur.

## Decision

- The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for Whithorn.
- The court held the evidence permitted a finding that National Bond’s employees unlawfully restrained Whithorn’s liberty.
- The court upheld both compensatory and punitive damages, finding the verdict supported by the proof and not excessive.

## Legal Principles

- False imprisonment may be established by an unlawful restraint of a person’s freedom of movement even without formal arrest, physical force, or explicit commands, when the defendant’s conduct effectively compels the person to remain.
- Confinement can be accomplished indirectly through wrongful control of a person’s property when the circumstances reasonably require the person to stay with the property to avoid its loss.
- A contractual right of self-help repossession does not justify methods that unreasonably interfere with personal liberty; repossession efforts may create tort liability when they cross into coercive restraint of the debtor’s person.
- Intent to confine may be inferred when a defendant knowingly engages in conduct whose natural and probable consequence is to restrict another’s movement.
- Punitive damages may be awarded for high-handed or willful interference with personal liberty, and will be upheld absent a showing the award reflects passion, prejudice, or is otherwise excessive.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed liability for false imprisonment where repossession agents disabled and towed a debtor’s car while he remained inside, effectively forcing him to stay with the vehicle, and it sustained compensatory and punitive damages as supported by the evidence.


Nat'l Bond & Inv. Co. v. Whithorn, 123 S.W.2d 263 (Ky. Ct. App. 1938)