Police of D found two brothers fighting and a drunk P trying to calm them. P told D he had no place to go.
D took P to the outskirts of town and left him there to sober up instead of arresting him. P wandered onto the highway and was hit by a car.
P sued D for false imprisonment.
D admitted at trial that he cannot remember the events of the night.
Procedural History:
Trial court found for D saying that false imprisonment requires the individual to be aware of the confinement.
Appellate Court affirmed, found for D.
COA NY reversed, found for P, found P was aware of the imprisonment.
Issues:
Is a D liable for falsely imprisoning a P when the P was not aware of the confinement at the time that it occurred?
Holding/Rule:
A D is not liable for falsely imprisoning a P when the P was not aware of the confinement at the time it occurred.
Reasoning:
False imprisonment is a dignitary tort and cannot be suffered unless one is aware of the dignitary invasion.
The trial court utilized the correct law but did not examine the issue of awareness correctly.
P mentioned at trial that that he had no recollection of what happened that night.
Trial court failed to determine whether P did not recollect due to lapse of memory or whether P was not conscious of his confinement at the time it was occurring.
Although P was drunk, it is not clear that he was unaware of his confinement.
This is visible through P's responses to the police and his conversation with them at the time he was in the car.
Dissent:
P has not made a case that he was even conscious of the confinement and that he failed to consent to it.
Notes:
For an action in false imprisonment, it is not required that the P remember the confinement at a later date. It is only necessary that the P be aware of the confinement at the time it occurred.
Under the Restatement, this requirement is waived if the victim has suffered physical injury as a result of the confinement.
