Principle: False imprisonment is a tort (wrong) which means the total restraint of a person's liberty without lawful justification.
Facts: A part of a public road had been closed for spectators of a boat race. 'P' wanted to enter but he was prevented by 'D' and other policemen because he had not paid the admission fee. 'P' was able to enter the enclosure by other means but was unable to go where he wanted to go. The policemen refused access to where he wanted to go but allowed him to remain where he was or to go back. 'P' remained within the enclosure and refused to leave. Subsequently, 'P' sued 'D' for false imprisonment.
Options
It was a case of false imprisonment, but 'D' could not be made liable for it.
'D' could not be made liable for false imprisonment, as he did not totally restrict P's movements.
'D' could be made liable for false imprisonment, as he did restrict P's movements.
'D' could not be made liable for false imprisonment as he has not touched him.
Solution
'D' could not be made liable for false imprisonment, as he did not totally restrict P's movements.
Explanation:
The tort of false imprisonment is constituted when there is a total restraint. It is no imprisonment if a person prevented from going in a particular direction but he his free to go any other direction. If a man is prevented from going to a particular direction but is allowed to go back there is no false imprisonment. The reasonable conclusion in the above-noted question is that there was no total restraint on the P's liberty. The reasonable conclusion is drawn that D could not be held liable for false imprisonment and he did not restrict P' s movement is the correct answer.
