## Facts

- Michele T. Noguchi ended a dating relationship with Alan H. Nakamura and refused his request to go on a date.
- Noguchi agreed to accompany Nakamura to a store only if he brought her “right back,” and Nakamura agreed.
- After returning and stopping in front of Noguchi’s house, Noguchi sat in the car with the door open.
- Nakamura suddenly drove away with Noguchi still in the car.
- Noguchi fell, was pushed, or jumped from the car and suffered injuries.
- Noguchi sued Alan H. Nakamura and Jerry M. Nakamura for negligence and false imprisonment.
- The trial court directed a verdict for defendants on false imprisonment and submitted negligence to the jury, which found for defendants.
- Noguchi appealed only the directed verdict on false imprisonment.

## Issues

1. Whether there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find false imprisonment when Nakamura drove away after returning Noguchi home under a limited consent (“to the store and back”).
2. Whether, under the civil directed-verdict standard, the evidence and reasonable inferences in Noguchi’s favor required submitting false imprisonment to the jury.

## Decision

- The Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai‘i reversed the directed verdict for defendants on the false imprisonment claim.
- The court held there was evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that Noguchi’s consent ended upon return to her home and that the subsequent driving away could constitute confinement.
- The court ruled that the scope and termination of Noguchi’s consent presented a factual question for the jury in a doubtful case.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on the false imprisonment claim.

## Legal Principles

- False imprisonment requires (1) intent to confine within fixed boundaries, (2) resulting confinement, and (3) the plaintiff’s awareness of the confinement or resulting harm.
- Consent to being in a limited enclosed space negates confinement, but consent may be limited in time, purpose, or scope.
- A moving automobile can constitute a place of confinement because safe egress is dangerous or impracticable.
- If a defendant exceeds the scope of consent by doing a substantially different act, liability for false imprisonment may arise.
- Whether prior consent is broad enough to cover an asserted confinement is generally a question of fact for the jury in doubtful cases.
- A directed verdict is proper only when, after crediting the plaintiff’s evidence and all reasonable inferences, there is no evidence to support a verdict for the plaintiff.
- False imprisonment does not require an express threat or a requirement that the plaintiff verbally refuse further travel at the moment the confinement begins when circumstances permit an inference of non-consent.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that a jury could find Noguchi’s limited consent to ride ended when she was returned home and that Nakamura’s sudden driving off could confine her in a moving car; because these issues were reasonably disputable, the trial court erred in taking the false imprisonment claim from the jury.


Noguchi v. Nakamura, 638 P.2d 1383 (Haw. Ct. App. 1982)