## Facts

- Mrs. Whittaker and her husband belonged to a religious sect led by Sandford.
- Mrs. Whittaker decided to leave the sect and return to the United States with her children.
- While awaiting passage, Sandford offered to transport her on his yacht, the barkentine “Kingdom.”
- Mrs. Whittaker stated she feared Sandford would keep her aboard to pressure her to rejoin the sect; Sandford assured her she would not be detained.
- After the yacht arrived at a Maine harbor, the vessel remained offshore, and the sea functioned as a barrier to leaving without a boat.
- Sandford controlled the vessel’s boats and refused to provide Mrs. Whittaker a means to go ashore, stating it depended on her husband; the husband similarly stated it depended on Sandford.
- From about May 10 to June 6, 1910, Mrs. Whittaker could go ashore only with her husband and not independently; during this time she was pressured to return to the sect.
- Habeas corpus proceedings were initiated, and she was brought before a justice and released from restraint by the sheriff.
- Mrs. Whittaker sued Sandford for damages for false imprisonment.
- A jury found for Mrs. Whittaker and awarded $1,100.

## Issues

1. Whether false imprisonment requires proof of physical restraint and, if so, whether physical restraint may be shown without physical force on the plaintiff’s person.
2. Whether a defendant’s refusal to provide the only practical means of leaving a bounded area (a yacht surrounded by water) can constitute physical restraint.
3. Whether the record of prior habeas corpus proceedings was admissible and, if admissible, for what limited purpose.
4. Whether evidence of Sandford’s claimed religious status and influence was admissible to show his authority over the vessel’s officers and the plaintiff’s ability to leave.

## Decision

- The court overruled Sandford’s exceptions and sustained the jury’s finding of liability for false imprisonment.
- The court held that the plaintiff had to show physical restraint, but not necessarily physical force applied to her body.
- The court held that where a defendant controls a vessel and, being under a duty to provide transportation to shore, intentionally refuses to provide it when there is no other means of escape, the refusal constitutes physical restraint and unlawful imprisonment.
- The court held the habeas corpus record was admissible only to show the improbability that the plaintiff was free to leave the yacht at will, not to establish liability by itself.
- The court held evidence of Sandford’s religious claims and role was admissible to show the extent of his authority and influence over the crew and sect members relevant to control of the means of egress.
- On the motion for a new trial, the court required remittitur: the verdict would stand if the plaintiff reduced the award to $500; otherwise a new trial would be granted.

## Legal Principles

- False imprisonment requires physical restraint, but physical restraint does not require bodily contact or physical force on the plaintiff’s person.
- Confinement may be established where a defendant intentionally withholds the only practical means of exit from a bounded area created by a physical barrier.
- A defendant who has control over the means of egress cannot avoid liability by characterizing confinement as the result of another person’s decision when the defendant’s conduct maintains the restraint.
- A habeas corpus record may be admitted for a limited evidentiary purpose to show the likelihood of restraint, without serving as a direct adjudication of the tort defendant’s liability in the damages action.
- Evidence of a defendant’s authority and influence over others controlling the place of confinement may be relevant to prove actual control over the restraint.

## Conclusion

The court upheld liability for false imprisonment where the defendant, controlling a yacht and the boats needed to reach shore, intentionally refused to provide the plaintiff the only means of leaving a water-bounded area, establishing physical restraint without physical force, while limiting and permitting evidence relevant to the existence and control of the confinement.


Whittaker v. Sandford, 110 Me. 77, 85 A. 399 (Me. 1912)