314: Listen and Learn -- False Imprisonment and Shopkeeper’s Privilege (Torts)

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Lee Burgess (00:02):
Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast.
Today we have another episode ofour "Listen and Learn" series - this
one discussing false imprisonmentand shopkeeper's privilege.
Your Bar Exam Toolbox hosts are AlisonMonahan and Lee Burgess, that's me.
We're here to demystify the barexam experience, so you can study
effectively, stay sane, and hopefullypass and move on with your life.

(00:22):
We're the co-creators of the Law SchoolToolbox, the Bar Exam Toolbox, and the
career-related website CareerDicta.
Alison also runs TheGirl's Guide to Law School.
If you enjoy the show, please leavea review or rating on your favorite
listening app, and check out our sisterpodcast, the Law School Toolbox podcast.
If you have any questions, don'thesitate to reach out to us.
You can reach us via the contactform on BarExamToolbox.com,

(00:43):
and we'd love to hear from you.
And with that, let's get started.
Welcome back to the "Listen and Learn"series from the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast.
Today we will be discussing torts- specifically, the intentional tort of
false imprisonment and an associateddefense - shopkeeper's privilege.

(01:05):
Let's start with a bird's eye view.
As you probably already know, thereare seven intentional torts - battery,
assault, false imprisonment,intentional infliction of emotional
distress, conversion, trespass toland, and trespass to chattels.
What makes each of these anintentional tort is that they all
require the element of intent.

(01:27):
If a plaintiff can prove a primafacie case of one of these intentional
torts, the defendant can then raisea defense or privilege, like consent,
self-defense, or shopkeeper's privilegeto try and negate their liability.
Today we will focus on falseimprisonment and shopkeeper's privilege.
We will start the discussion with falseimprisonment, because the plaintiff

(01:49):
needs to establish a prima facie caseof the intentional tort before the
defendant can raise any defenses.
False imprisonment is definedas an intentional act of
restraint that causes a person'sconfinement within a bounded area.
Simply put, when a defendant intentionallyconfines a plaintiff, you have a

(02:09):
potential case of false imprisonment.
As with any intentional tort, thiscan be broken down into elements, and

false imprisonment has three (02:16):
[1] the defendant must have the intent to confine;
[2] the defendant must restrain theplaintiff to fixed boundaries; and [3]
the plaintiff must either be consciousof the confinement or harmed by it.
So let's examine each ofthese elements one by one.
The first element is that the defendantmust have the intent to confine.

(02:39):
There are a few ways toprove intent to confine.
If the defendant acts with purposeto confine the plaintiff, meaning it
was the defendant's desired outcomethat the plaintiff be confined,
they will have the requisite intent.
Similarly, if the defendant actswith the knowledge to a substantial
certainty that the plaintiff will beconfined by the defendant's actions,

(03:00):
they will have the requisite intent.
The doctrine of transferred intentalso applies to false imprisonment.
This doctrine has twoapplications - it can transfer
between persons or between torts.
For person-to-person transfer, if thedefendant intends to confine person A
but actually confines person B, then thedefendant's intent transfers to B. For

(03:25):
tort-to-tort transfer, if the defendantintends a battery against someone but
instead causes a false imprisonment, therequisite intent transfers to satisfy the
intent element for false imprisonment.
The second element is that thedefendant must restrain the
plaintiff within fixed boundaries.

(03:45):
This element has several importantcomponents to understand.
First, what counts as restraint?
Physical force clearly constitutesvalid restraint - for example,
if someone physically preventsanother person from moving.
But restraint can also occurthrough verbal threats.
If someone says, "If you leavethis room, I'll hurt your

(04:06):
family" - that verbal threat cansatisfy the restraint requirement,
even without physical contact.
Regarding fixed boundaries, thisrefers to the area of confinement.
While the confined area can be substantialin size, it generally cannot be as
large as an entire country or state.
For example, if plaintiff told theymust stay within Canada would likely

(04:30):
not succeed with a false imprisonmentclaim, because the boundary is
too large to prove there was noreasonable means of safe escape.
If a plaintiff can reasonablyescape the area, they were not
placed in a fixed boundary.
Additionally, merely preventingsomeone from taking their preferred
route or entering a desired locationdoes not constitute a fixed boundary.

(04:53):
Additionally, there is no minimumduration requirement for this element.
The plaintiff could be restrainedfor seconds, hours, or days.
Any period of confinement canpotentially satisfy this element.
So, let's go through some examples tohelp clarify what constitutes being
restrained within a fixed boundary.
Imagine this:

(05:14):
Alexander is driving along histypical path to work when he comes
upon a detour sign that forces himto go down a different road, which
adds 15 minutes to his commute.
Was Alexander restrainedwithin fixed boundaries?
The answer is "no".
He was prevented from taking his desiredroute, but that does not constitute

(05:34):
confinement within fixed boundaries.

Consider another scenario (05:37):
Erica is obsessed with Mitch, so much
so that she locks him in herhome and will not let him out.
On the first floor of thefour-story home, Mitch finds an
open window, but does not jump out.
Was Mitch restrainedwithin fixed boundaries?
Again, the answer is "no".

(05:57):
Although the four-story home is a definedspace that could satisfy the fixed
boundary requirement, the existence ofa reasonable means of escape - the first
floor window - negates this element.
However, if the window had been onthe third floor instead, the outcome
would change, because jumping fromthat height would not constitute
a reasonable means of escape.

(06:20):
The third element of false imprisonmentis that the plaintiff must be conscious
of the confinement or harmed by it.
Note the "or" in this statement - onlyone of these conditions needs to
be met, though both can occur.
Regarding "conscious of theconfinement", consider this

situation (06:36):
A is asleep in her room.
B locks the bedroom door from the outside.
Before A wakes up, B unlocks the door.
Later that day, B tells A what happened.
Was A conscious of her confinement?
No.
To satisfy this requirement, theplaintiff must be aware of the
confinement while it is occurring,not just learn about it afterward.

(07:00):
As for the "harmed by it" requirement,according to bar exam standards, this
typically refers to physical harm.
Under the traditional approachtested on bar exams, economic
property or mental harm alone wouldgenerally not satisfy this element.
To summarize, a claim of falseimprisonment requires proof that, [1]

(07:21):
the defendant had the intent to confine;[2] the defendant restrained the
plaintiff to fixed boundaries; and [3]the plaintiff was either conscious of the
confinement or physically harmed by it.
Now let's test your understandingwith a couple of hypotheticals.
This first hypothetical is adaptedfrom the July 2010 California bar exam:

(07:43):
"Burglar used a handgun inan attack on Patron in the
parking lot of a movie theater.
During the attack, Burglarapproached Patron and demanded
that she hand over her purse.
Patron refused.
Burglar drew the handgun, pointed itat Patron and yelled, 'Don't move!
You made me mad, so now I'm going to shootyou!' Patron was paralyzed in fear and was

(08:04):
unable to move for just long enough forBurglar to grab the purse and run away.
Can Patron bring a valid falseimprisonment claim against Burglar?"
Let's analyze each element and discuss.
For the first element, Burglar didhave an intent to confine Patron by
pointing a gun at her and commanding,"Don't move!" Burglar purposefully

(08:25):
intended to restrict Patron's movement.
Moving to the second element, Burglardid restrain Patron to fixed boundaries.
The restraint occurred through theverbal threat backed by the deadly
weapon, not through physical contact.
Although Patron was in an openparking lot, rather than an enclosed
space, she was effectively confinedto her spot because there was

(08:47):
no reasonable means of escape.
Attempting to flee couldresult in being shot.
Even though the restraint lasted onlybriefly, there is no minimum duration
requirement for false imprisonment.
Regarding the third element, Patron wascertainly conscious of her confinement.
She was aware that she could not movebecause of the gun pointed at her.

(09:08):
While she was not physicallyharmed by the confinement itself,
consciousness of the confinement issufficient to satisfy this element.
Since all three elements are met,Patron would be able to bring a false
imprisonment claim against Burglar.
Let's examine one more hypothetical,adapted from the July 2006 California

bar exam (09:29):
"After paying for his gasoline at Delta Gas, Paul decided
to buy two 75-cent candy bars.
The Delta Gas store clerk, Gary,was talking on the telephone, so
Paul tossed $1.50 on the counter,pocketed the candy, and headed out.
Gary saw Paul pocket the candy andhad not seen Paul toss down the money.

(09:52):
Gary yelled, 'Come back here, thief!' Paulsaid, 'I paid, look on the counter.' Gary
replied, 'I've got your license number andI'm going to call the cops.' Paul stopped.
He did not want trouble with the police.
Gary told Paul to follow him to theback room and to wait for Mark, the
store manager, and Paul complied.
Gary closed and locked the onlydoor to the windowless back room.

(10:14):
Paul was in the room for 25minutes before Mark came in.
Can Paul raise a valid prima facie caseagainst Gary for false imprisonment?"
Now, I'm going to pause herefor a moment and let you think
about this question on your own.
You can also pause this episodeand do a little work on this
question, and then come back andwe can talk about the elements.

(10:37):
Okay, are you back?
Now let's analyze the elements.
Did Gary have the intent to confine Paul?
Yes.
Gary purposefully placed Paul in a lockedwindowless room, clearly intending to
confine him while waiting for the manager.
Did Gary restrain Paulwithin fixed boundaries?
Yes.
Paul was physically restrainedbecause he was in a windowless

(10:59):
room with the only door locked,leaving him with no means of escape.
The room certainlyconstitutes a fixed boundary.
Was Paul conscious of hisconfinement or harmed by it?
Yes.
There are no facts indicating physicalharm, but Paul was certainly aware of
his confinement in the locked room.
With all three elements satisfied, Paulcould raise a valid prima facie case

(11:24):
against Gary for false imprisonment.
Now that we understand falseimprisonment, let's discuss the
shopkeeper's privilege defense.
This defense can potentially negateliability for false imprisonment
when a shopkeeper detainssomeone suspected of shoplifting.
To successfully assert this defense, adefendant must prove three elements: [1]

(11:46):
the defendant had reasonable grounds tobelieve shoplifting occurred; [2] the
defendant detained the plaintiff only fora reasonable period and for investigative
purposes; [3] the detention itself wasreasonable, generally meaning without
excessive force or physical restraint.
So, let's apply these elements to oursecond hypothetical with Paul and Gary.

(12:07):
First, did Gary have reasonable groundsto believe shoplifting occurred?
While Gary did see Paul pocketthe candy bars without immediately
observing payment, his belief becameunreasonable once Paul told him
to check the counter for money.
A reasonable investigation would'veinvolved simply looking at the counter,

(12:27):
which Gary apparently did not do.
Second, was Paul detained for a reasonableperiod and for investigative purposes?
The 25-minute detention was likelyexcessive, given that verifying payment
would've taken less than a minute.
The detention seems to have extended wellbeyond what was necessary for a reasonable
investigation under these circumstances.

(12:48):
Third, was the detentionitself reasonable?
In terms of methods used, nophysical force was employed against
Paul, suggesting this aspect ofthe detention was reasonable.
Since Gary satisfies only the thirdelement of shopkeeper's privilege
- reasonable means of detention,but fails to satisfy the first two
elements, he cannot successfullyassert this defense to negate his

(13:12):
liability for false imprisonment.
To recap what we've learned, falseimprisonment has three elements:
intent to confine, restraintwithin fixed boundaries, and
the plaintiff's consciousnessof or harm from the confinement.
If these elements are established,the defendant may be liable unless
they can raise a valid defense.

(13:33):
Shopkeeper's privilege isa defense specific to false
imprisonment in retail context.

It also has three elements (13:40):
reasonable grounds to suspect shoplifting,
detention for a reasonable periodfor investigative purposes, and
reasonable methods of detention.
All three elements must be satisfiedfor the defense to succeed.
Alright, we're out of time for today.
Thank you for joining me as wediscussed false imprisonment
and the shopkeeper's privilege.

(14:01):
If you enjoyed this episode of theBar Exam Toolbox podcast, please
take a second to leave a review andrating on your favorite listening app.
We'd really appreciate it.
And be sure to subscribeso you don't miss anything.
If you have any questions or comments,please don't hesitate to reach out to
myself or Alison at lee@barexamtoolbox.comor alison@barexamtoolbox.com.

(14:22):
Or you can always contactus via our website contact
form at BarExamToolbox.com.
Thanks for listening, and we'll talk soon!

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Dateline NBC

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}314: Listen and Learn -- False Imprisonment and Shopkeeper’s Privilege (Torts)