Skip to main content

Wrongful restraint of a man's liberty: Meaning, Defense and Remedy

 Wrongful restraint of a man's liberty: Meaning, Defense and Remedy

By Nemi Bhavsar

Wrongfully restraining a man's liberty is actionable in the law of torts, under the heading Trespass to Person or more specifically, under the heading false imprisonment. Let us first take a look at the definition of false imprisonment.

According to Winfield, false imprisonment can be defined as consisting in imprisonment of a total restraint for some period, however short upon the liberty of aaWrongfully restraining a man's liberty is actionable in the law of torts, under the heading Trespass to Person or more specifically, under the heading false imprisonment. Let us first take a look at the definition of false imprisonment.

The plaintiff has to prove the following to invoke liability under the wrongful act of false imprisonment:

1) The plaintiff has to prove that he was imprisoned in any form or the other. The basic essential that constitutes the wrongful act of false imprisonment is that the victim must have been imprisoned. Without a person being imprisoned, he/ she cannot file a case for false imprisonment. This can either be actual i.e., laying bare hands upon that person or constructive i.e., by a mere show of authority. 

 

2) Having proved imprisonment, the plaintiff now has to prove that the imprisonment was unlawful, i.e., it wasn't backed by any legal sanction. If any imprisonment (either physical or constructive) is backed by legal sanction, then it does not fall under the ambit of this tort. 

 

3) The imprisonment must be total and not partial in the sense that the plaintiffs right to move about freely i.e., his right to liberty is constrained in all the four directions and not in any particular direction. Only then shall it be considered as a wrongful act of false imprisonment.

 

4) For the case of false imprisonment, the knowledge of the plaintiff that he is being subject to that tort is not necessary. In the case of Merring v Graham White Aviation Co Ltd , Lord Atkin said that a person could be imprisoned while he was asleep or in a state of drunkenness.

 

5) This act can be caused by either the defendant himself or through any other person. A person may be liable for false imprisonment not only when he directly arrests or detains the plaintiff, but also when he was "active in promoting or causing" the arrest or detention .

 

6) Lastly, the plaintiff has to prove that the act of false imprisonment to which he was subjected had no legal backing. If it was under the due course of law then this tort won't be applicable.

Case: Garikipati Ramayya v Araza Biksham 

In this case, the defendant who was the sarpanch (headman) of a village made a false report to the police that the plaintiff (who was from the opposition party) had set fire to his property. On the basis of this report, the police arrested the plaintiff, but the charges came out to be false. The defendant was held liable for the tort of false imprisonment.

Case: Rudul Sah v State of Bihar 

In this case, plaintiff had got his acquittal orders long time back. Still the jail authorities did not release him for a period of 14 years. The plaintiff filed a writ petition under Article 32 in the Supreme Court of India stating that he had been wrongfully imprisoned. The petition was allowed, and the State was held liable.

Defenses for False Imprisonment:

1) An action of taking a person under imprisonment won't be a tort of false imprisonment if it was under judicial authority or public authority i.e., it was backed by a judicial order. For example, if the courts have ordered the compulsory presentation of someone before it then that person cannot claim false imprisonment .

 2) When a police officer arrests a person erroneously named in a warrant, he is not liable for false imprisonment as his only duty is to execute the warrant as it is on its face .

 3) A person while exercising reasonable self-defense, when wrongfully imprisoning another person would not be held liable for this tort. The main condition in this regard is that the use of force by the plaintiff must be reasonable.

 4) Parental and Quasi-parental authority is also a defense for this tort. If a parent in the exercise of their control and supervision restrains the liberty of their child or pupil to a certain extent, then it won't be held to be false imprisonment. Similarly, if a teacher at school restrains a child within the school hours for his own benefit, then it won't be false imprisonment.

 5) Measures of crowd control adopted by the police resulting in the detention of a crowd, which also included some innocent people, to prevent breach of peace, and risk of injury to persons or property would not lead to false imprisonment so long as they were done in good faith.

 6) Consent of the opposite party as in Volenti Nonfit Injuria would also be an effective defense in this case. If the plaintiff gives his own consent freely without any external influence on the curtailment of his own liberty, then the defendant won't be held liable for false imprisonment.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more