Intentional torts - False imprisonment

Learning Outcomes

This article explains false imprisonment doctrine for MBE-style torts questions, including:

• Identifying and applying each required element of false imprisonment in multiple-choice fact patterns.
• Distinguishing sufficient from insufficient methods of confinement or restraint, with emphasis on threats, duress, and invalid legal authority.
• Evaluating whether an area is legally “bounded,” whether escape routes are reasonable and safe, and when property-based confinement is recognized.
• Analyzing intent and causation, including the exclusion of negligence and the operation of transferred intent.
• Determining when the plaintiff’s awareness, unconsciousness, or resulting harm satisfies the awareness-or-harm requirement.
• Applying key defenses and privileges—consent, legal authority, legal justification, shopkeeper’s privilege, and self-defense or necessity.
• Assessing available damages, including nominal, actual, and punitive damages, and understanding how duration of confinement affects the remedy but not liability.
• Spotting common exam traps, such as moral or economic pressure, vague future threats, and voluntary presence at the police station or store.
• Practicing a structured issue-spotting approach that moves from confinement and bounded area, to intent and causation, to defenses and damages.

MBE Syllabus

For the MBE, you are required to understand intentional torts involving personal liberty, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

• The definition and elements of false imprisonment.
• What constitutes confinement or restraint to a bounded area.
• Sufficient and insufficient methods of confinement (force, threats, legal authority, and omissions).
• The requirement of intent and causation; the exclusion of negligence.
• Defenses to false imprisonment, including consent, privilege, and shopkeeper’s privilege.
• The role of damages, awareness of confinement, and the irrelevance of the duration of confinement.

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

1. Which of the following is NOT a sufficient method of confinement for false imprisonment?
   1. Locking someone in a room.
   2. Threatening to harm their property if they leave.
   3. Telling someone you will dislike them if they leave.
   4. Physically restraining them.
2. For false imprisonment, the plaintiff must show:
   1. Actual physical force was used.
   2. The defendant intended to confine the plaintiff.
   3. The plaintiff suffered physical injury.
   4. The defendant acted negligently.
3. A shopkeeper detains a suspected shoplifter for 10 minutes in a reasonable manner after seeing them conceal goods. Is this likely false imprisonment?
   1. Yes, because any detention is actionable.
   2. Yes, unless the shopkeeper was correct about the theft.
   3. No, if the detention was reasonable in time and manner.
   4. No, unless the shopkeeper used physical force.

Introduction

False imprisonment is an intentional tort that protects a person's right to freedom of movement. It occurs when one person intentionally confines another within fixed boundaries, and the victim is aware of or harmed by the confinement. This tort is frequently tested on the MBE, often in scenarios involving threats, shopkeeper detentions, mistaken confinement, or invalid use of legal authority.

Key Term: False Imprisonment
The intentional confinement of a person within fixed boundaries by another, without lawful justification, where the victim is aware of the confinement or suffers harm as a result.

False imprisonment is closely related to, but distinct from, criminal false imprisonment and kidnapping. The MBE Torts questions focus on the civil intentional tort. Criminal law may use similar language, but the exam will usually be asking whether the plaintiff has a viable tort claim for damages.

Key Term: Confinement
Compelling a person either to remain where they do not wish to remain or to go where they do not wish to go, by means that effectively limit their freedom of movement.

Elements of False Imprisonment

To establish false imprisonment, the plaintiff must prove:

1. The defendant committed an act (or omission) that confined or restrained the plaintiff to a bounded area.
2. The defendant intended to confine or restrain the plaintiff.
3. The plaintiff was aware of the confinement or suffered harm.
4. The defendant's act caused the confinement.

Key Term: Bounded Area
An area where the plaintiff's freedom of movement in all directions is limited, with no reasonable means of escape known to the plaintiff.

Act or Omission Confined the Plaintiff

The act may be:

• An affirmative act, such as locking a door, blocking an exit, or physically restraining the plaintiff.
• An omission, where the defendant has a duty to release the plaintiff or provide a way out and intentionally fails to do so (for example, a jailer refusing to open the cell door at the end of a sentence).

The confinement must actually result, either directly or indirectly, from the defendant’s conduct. Merely trying but failing to confine someone is not false imprisonment, though it might be an assault.

Bounded Area and Reasonable Means of Escape

The plaintiff must be confined to a bounded area. The area:

• Can be large (e.g., an entire building or a moving vehicle).
• Need not be stationary; confinement in a moving van or bus satisfies this requirement if the plaintiff cannot leave.

Key Term: Safe Means of Escape
A way out that is reasonable under the circumstances, not hidden, dangerous, humiliating, or unknown to the plaintiff at the time.

If there is a reasonable, safe means of escape that the plaintiff knows about, there is no confinement. However:

• An escape route that requires climbing out of a high window, wading through hazardous substances, or suffering substantial humiliation is not “reasonable.”
• The exam often tests this by giving an apparently available exit that is dangerous or degrading—do not treat that as a reasonable means of escape.

Awareness and Harm

The plaintiff must either:

• Be aware of the confinement at the time, or
• Suffer actual harm because of the confinement (physical or emotional), even if unaware when it occurred.

Key Term: Awareness of Confinement
Knowledge, at the time of confinement, that one’s freedom of movement has been restricted to a bounded area.

A plaintiff who is asleep, unconscious, or intoxicated during confinement and suffers no resulting harm cannot recover for false imprisonment.

Example: A bus driver accidentally locks a sleeping passenger inside a bus overnight. If the passenger wakes up the next morning unharmed, there is no false imprisonment because there was neither contemporaneous awareness nor resulting harm. If the passenger suffers heat stroke during the night, the harm element is satisfied and a claim becomes possible.

Time of Confinement

The duration of the confinement is immaterial. A brief but intentional confinement (even seconds or minutes) can be actionable, and a long confinement is not required. The length of time may affect the amount of damages but not the existence of liability.

Methods of Confinement

Confinement can be achieved by various means. The following are sufficient:

• Physical barriers (e.g., locked doors, blocked exits, fencing).
• Physical force or restraint.
• Direct or indirect threats of force (to the person, family, or property).
• Invalid or excessive use of legal authority (e.g., an unlawful arrest).
• Duress, such as threats of serious, immediate consequences if the plaintiff leaves.
• Failure to provide a means of escape when under a duty to do so (e.g., refusing to open a door or to permit exit from a dressing room).

Key Term: Threat of Force
A communicated threat—direct or implied—that would make a reasonable person believe they will suffer immediate harm to person, family, or property if they attempt to leave.

Typical MBE methods of confinement include:

• Confiscating the plaintiff’s property in a way that practically forces them to stay (e.g., refusing to return a purse, phone, or car keys when the plaintiff reasonably cannot leave without them).
• Standing in a doorway and stating that the plaintiff may not leave, especially when combined with a show of force.
• Telling the plaintiff that attempting to leave will result in immediate physical harm.

Invalid use of legal authority—such as making an arrest without proper authority or beyond the scope of a warrant—can also amount to false imprisonment if it results in confinement.

Key Term: Legal Authority
Power conferred by law (such as a valid warrant or statutory arrest power) that, when properly exercised, justifies detaining or confining another person.

Courts also recognize liability when a defendant refuses to perform a duty necessary for the plaintiff’s release, such as a jailer or store employee refusing to open a door when they have a duty to do so.

Insufficient Methods

Not all forms of pressure amount to false imprisonment. Commonly tested insufficient methods include:

• Moral pressure (e.g., “I will be upset if you leave,” “You will let me down if you go now”).
• Economic pressure (e.g., threats to fire an employee for leaving early, absent more).
• Future threats (“If you leave, I will do something to you tomorrow”).
• Plaintiff’s voluntary submission to authority without force, threat, or deception (e.g., going to the police station when politely asked and free to go at any time).

Key Term: Moral Pressure
Emotional or social persuasion, such as expressing disappointment or disapproval, that does not involve threats of immediate force or unlawful consequences.

Vague, non-immediate threats are a common trap. For false imprisonment, the threat must be tied to immediate consequences for attempting to leave. “If you ever come back here, I’ll hurt you” does not confine the plaintiff to a bounded area right now and therefore is not false imprisonment.

Reasonable Means of Escape and Property

If the only way out requires sacrificing important property (for example, leaving behind a purse with identification, money, and keys), courts often treat the situation as confinement if the defendant intentionally created or exploited that condition.

Example: A store employee takes a customer’s purse and refuses to return it unless the customer goes to a back office. The customer reasonably feels unable to leave without the purse. The employee may have falsely imprisoned the customer, even though no physical contact occurred.

Intent and Causation

The defendant must intend to confine the plaintiff or know with substantial certainty that confinement will result.

• It is enough that the defendant intends the act that results in confinement and knows confinement is substantially certain to occur.
• The defendant need not intend to cause harm or know that confinement is unlawful.

Negligent conduct alone is not enough for this intentional tort. Forgetting to open a door, failing to notice that someone is in a room, or other accidental oversights ordinarily sound in negligence, not false imprisonment.

Transferred intent applies.

Key Term: Transferred Intent
The principle that intent to commit an intentional tort against one person (or to commit a different intentional tort) can satisfy the intent requirement when a different person is confined instead.

Examples:

• If a defendant intends to lock A in a room, but accidentally locks B inside instead, the intent transfers and the defendant is liable to B for false imprisonment.
• If a defendant swings a log intending to hit someone (battery), but instead blocks the person into a corner, creating confinement, the intent to commit an intentional tort is sufficient to satisfy the intent element for false imprisonment.

Causation requires that the defendant’s act, or something set in motion by that act, actually result in the plaintiff’s confinement. If the plaintiff remains by choice and not due to any coercion or limitation imposed by the defendant, causation fails.

Defenses to False Imprisonment

Several defenses may defeat a claim:

• Consent.
• Legal authority.
• Shopkeeper's privilege.
• Other privileges, such as self-defense, defense of others, or necessity in limited circumstances.

Consent

If the plaintiff consented to the confinement, there is no false imprisonment, as long as:

• The consent is valid (no coercion, fraud on an essential matter, or incapacity).
• The defendant’s conduct stays within the scope of the consent.

Consent can be express (spoken or written) or implied from conduct (for example, voluntarily entering a locked ride at an amusement park knowing it will close for a short period).

However:

• Consent obtained by fraud that goes to an essential matter (e.g., misrepresenting the nature or purpose of the confinement) is invalid.
• Consent may be invalid if the plaintiff lacks capacity (e.g., young children or persons with significant cognitive impairment).

Legal Authority and Legal Justification

Valid exercises of legal authority can justify confinement. Examples include:

• Arrests made under a valid warrant.
• Warrantless felony arrests by police officers who have reasonable grounds to believe a felony has been committed and the person arrested committed it.
• Lawful detention of prisoners.

If the arrest or detention is lawful, the confinement is privileged and not “false.” However, invalid or excessive use of legal authority—such as arrest without authority or beyond the scope of a warrant—may itself constitute false imprisonment.

Key Term: Legal Justification
A privilege to confine someone arising from the proper exercise of legal rights or duties, such as a lawful arrest or detention pursuant to valid legal process.

On the MBE, fact patterns may involve private citizens assisting police or detaining suspected criminals. When those citizens act at the direction of law enforcement or under a statute granting authority, lawful confinement may be privileged.

Shopkeeper's Privilege

Key Term: Shopkeeper's Privilege
The right of a merchant to detain a suspected shoplifter on or near store premises for a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner, based on a reasonable belief that theft has occurred.

A shopkeeper may avoid liability for false imprisonment if:

• There is a reasonable belief that the person detained has stolen or is attempting to steal goods.
• The detention is conducted in a reasonable manner (no excessive force, threats, or unnecessary humiliation).
• The detention lasts for a reasonable time, limited to investigating the suspicion and, if appropriate, summoning law enforcement.

Typical MBE fact patterns involve:

• Brief detentions (e.g., 5–15 minutes) to question the suspect or check receipts.
• Detentions in non-public areas, such as a back office, without unnecessary physical force.

If the shopkeeper’s suspicion is reasonable and the time and manner of detention are reasonable, there is no false imprisonment—even if it turns out the person was innocent.

Other Privileges: Self-Defense, Defense of Others, Necessity

A defendant may sometimes confine another as a necessary part of exercising other privileges:

• Self-defense or defense of others: Temporarily restraining or locking someone in a room to prevent an immediate battery may be privileged if the force and confinement are reasonable under the circumstances.
• Necessity: In rare cases, confining a person to prevent greater imminent harm (for example, keeping someone in a safe room during an ongoing violent incident) can be privileged if the response is reasonable and proportionate.

These privileges are narrow and fact-specific on the MBE; look for imminent threats and clearly reasonable responses.

Defenses That Do Not Apply

Certain doctrines do not provide defenses to intentional torts, including false imprisonment:

• Comparative negligence and contributory negligence.
• Assumption of risk (except where it overlaps with valid consent).
• Insanity, except where it prevents formation of intent itself.

Damages

Actual damages are not required for liability. The plaintiff may recover:

• Nominal damages even if no actual harm occurred.
• Actual damages for physical, emotional, or economic harm caused by the confinement.
• Punitive damages if the defendant acted with malice, ill will, or reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s rights.

Key Term: Nominal Damages
A small sum awarded to recognize that a legal right was violated, even when no substantial actual harm can be proved.

False imprisonment protects the dignitary interest in freedom of movement. Thus, merely proving the wrongful confinement (with the necessary elements) is enough for liability; damages then address the extent of the harm.

Worked Example 1.1

A security guard locks a customer in a store room for 20 minutes after suspecting theft, but uses no force or threats. The customer is aware and asks to leave, but is refused. The guard did not see the customer take anything and has no specific reason to suspect them.

Answer:
This is false imprisonment. The guard intentionally confined the customer to a bounded area without legal authority or reasonable suspicion. The customer was aware of the confinement, and the duration is irrelevant to liability. The shopkeeper’s privilege does not apply because the guard lacked a reasonable basis for the suspicion.

Worked Example 1.2

A bus driver forgets a sleeping passenger and locks the bus overnight. The passenger wakes up in the morning and is unharmed.

Answer:
There is no false imprisonment unless the passenger was aware of the confinement at the time or suffered harm as a result. Here, the driver’s conduct is at most negligent, and the passenger suffered no harm. The awareness-or-harm requirement is not met, and the intent element is also lacking.

Worked Example 1.3

A shopkeeper detains a customer for 5 minutes after seeing them conceal merchandise, asks questions, and releases them when satisfied. No force is used, and the questioning occurs in a small office near the sales floor.

Answer:
This is not false imprisonment if the detention was based on a reasonable belief that theft was occurring, conducted in a reasonable manner, and for a reasonable time. The shopkeeper's privilege applies and provides a complete defense to the claim.

Worked Example 1.4

A clerk takes a customer’s briefcase, which contains the customer’s wallet, phone, and medications, and says, “You are not getting this back unless you stay here and talk to my manager.” The customer remains, feeling unable to leave without the briefcase.

Answer:
This is false imprisonment. The clerk intentionally confined the customer by withholding essential property and conditioning its return on remaining in a bounded area. The customer reasonably believes there is no safe, reasonable means of escape because leaving without the briefcase would cause serious practical harm. No valid privilege applies.

Exam Warning

Be careful: Threats must be of immediate harm. Moral pressure, economic threats, or vague threats about future consequences do not amount to false imprisonment. Also check whether the defendant had a reasonable belief and acted reasonably in time and manner—especially in shopkeeper questions.

Revision Tip

Always check if the plaintiff had a reasonable, safe means of escape known to them. If so, there is no confinement. Then confirm intent (not mere negligence) and either awareness at the time or actual harm.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• False imprisonment requires intentional confinement within fixed boundaries.
• Confinement may be by physical barriers, force, threats, duress, invalid legal authority, or failure to release when under a duty.
• Moral pressure, economic pressure, and non-immediate or vague future threats are not sufficient.
• The plaintiff must be aware of the confinement at the time or suffer actual harm as a result.
• The duration of confinement is immaterial; brief confinements can be actionable.
• The area must be bounded with no reasonable, safe means of escape known to the plaintiff.
• Intent and causation are required; negligence is insufficient, and transferred intent applies.
• Defenses include consent, valid legal authority (legal justification), and shopkeeper's privilege.
• Other privileges, such as self-defense, defense of others, or necessity, can justify limited confinement.
• Actual damages are not required; nominal and, in appropriate cases, punitive damages are available.

Key Terms and Concepts

• False Imprisonment
• Confinement
• Bounded Area
• Safe Means of Escape
• Threat of Force
• Awareness of Confinement
• Moral Pressure
• Transferred Intent
• Legal Authority
• Legal Justification
• Shopkeeper's Privilege
• Nominal Damages