Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

FALSE IMPRISONMENT - Coggle Diagram

- - - - the plaintiff live in asylum run by D2. the plaintiff was given a month’s leave but D2 was given the discretion to call the plaintiff back if he felt that the plaintiff could not look after himself during that one month. On his second day out, the plaintiff went to an office to pay a visit to some people. D1 who was there, was of the opinion that the plaintiff was acting strangely. He called D2, who asked D1 to make sure that the plaintiff stayed there, as D2 would send a car round to fetch the plaintiff.
      - The car arrived some three hours later and the plaintiff was brought back to the asylum. D2 found the plaintiff to be insane and did not let him out. For 9 years thereafter, the plaintiff was sent from one institution to another. He was finally proven sane and released. The jury was of the opinion that the plaintiff was sane 9 years previously at the time of committal to the institution.
      - The Court of Appeal found the D1 liable for false imprisonment during the 3 hours’ restrain, and D2 for the 9 years’ restrain.
  - - - No false imprisonment arose when the plaintiff could have escaped from his confinement, although it meant he would have trespassed on another’s land in order to regain his liberty.
    - - The plaintiff does not need to know that he has been restrained in order to succeed in his action.
        
        Case: Meering v Graham White Aviation Ltd (1919) 122 LT 44
        The plaintiff was being questioned at the defendant’s factory in connection with certain thefts from the defendant company. He did not know of the presence of 2 works police outside the room, who would have prevented his leaving if necessary. The plaintiff succeeded in an action of false imprisonment against the defendant.