Theodora Holder

Final IRAAC Assignment Theodora Holder MLAW 552 American Legal System & Writing (03) Professor Leigh Budwell Due on December 16, 2023 Final IRAAC, Assignment 3 Involuntarily restrained Problem Facts: Freda brought her VW bug into Thrifty Repair for its 500,000-mile check‐up. Freda told the manager of Thrifty to do whatever they needed to do to get her trusty vehicle running like new. Freda assumed that it only needed to be tuned‐up – spark plugs, check the belts, etc., which she thought would cost about fifty dollars. When Freda returned the next day to pick up her car, Thrifty had replaced the engine and the transmission. The car now ran like new, but the price for the repairs was $3000.00. Freda was flabbergasted. She only had fifty dollars on her person and another fifty dollars in the bank. She explained this to the manager and asked if she could work out a payment plan. This did not sit well with the manager who exploded and went on a profanity‐laced rant about irresponsible kids. This brought the attention of five overall‐wearing, oil‐covered Thrifty mechanics who surrounded Freda and in unison chanted, “we want our money.” Freda felt very afraid. The manager would not consider a payment plan, but rather stood between Freda and the VW, all the while repeating loudly that she was in legal trouble, and that they did not let customers leave who did not first pay the repair bill. This standoff lasted about twenty minutes. The manager continued to yell and the other employees continued to appear menacing, at least to Freda. Finally, Freda, being young and nimble, made a break for the door. The employees, all over forty years old, could not catch her. So, as it now stands, Thrifty still has the car and Freda has a plan to redeem it. She has brought a suit for false imprisonment and has asked for $3000.00 in damages, plus attorney’s fees. Issue: Whether Freda was involuntarily restrained pursuant to False Imprisonment 1 § and False Imprisonment § 2. Rule: The restraint of the person may be caused by threats, as well as by actual force, if the words are such as to induce a reasonable apprehension of force pursuant to False Imprisonment 1 § and False Imprisonment § 2, involuntary restraint and its unlawfulness are the two essential elements of false imprisonment. Courts determined this by evaluating the two essential elements to constitute false imprisonment there must be an exercise of force, or express or implied threat of force, by which in fact the person is deprived of his liberty and compelled to remain where he does not wish to remain. Analogous Case: For instance, Hoffman v. Clinic Hospital, 197 S.E. 161 (N.C. 1938), the court found evidence held insufficient to show an express or implied threat of force, and defendant hospital's motion to nonsuit was properly granted because the manager of the hospital told plaintiff, a patient in the hospital, she could not leave until she had paid her bill but the plaintiff’s doctor told her that she could leave, so Hoffman was not being held by a threat of force. However, the plaintiff remained in the hospital for a short period of time, believing she could not go, but then left, nevertheless, in the hospital's wheel chair without any force or show of force being offered to prevent her from leaving. Thus, where no force or violence is actually used, the submission must be to a reasonably apprehended force. The circumstance, merely, that one considers himself restrained in person is not sufficient to constitute a false imprisonment unless there is in fact a reasonable ground to apprehend a resort to force upon an attempt to assert one's liberty. Therefore, the court found evidence held insufficient to show express or implied force sufficient to sustain action for false imprisonment. Argument/Application: Freda’s attorney will argue that Freda was involuntarily restrained pursuant to the statue because the threats were sufficient to induce a reasonable apprehension of force. This standoff lasted about twenty minutes as Freda was surrounded by the manager and employees yelling at her “threats” “we want our money.” Freda felt very afraid. The manager stood between Freda and the VW, all the while repeating loudly that she was in legal trouble, and that they did not let customers leave who did not first pay the repair bill. Similar to Hoffman’s case, the hospital manager told her that he would not let her go home until her bill was paid as well but a witness testified that Hoffman’s doctor told her she could leave and advised her that she was too weak to walk and must be taken out in a wheel chair. Therefore, Hoffman remained in the hospital for a short period of time by her own will and then left the hospital. No one put their hands on Hoffman , no one undertook to restrain her by any kind of force and nobody threatened her. Unlike Freda who had to make a break for the door and flee from the threats. Because these threats showed, expressed and implied force and were sufficient to induce a reasonable apprehension of force pursuant to the statue, the court should find Freda was involuntarily restrained pursuant to the statue because the threats were sufficient to induce a reasonable apprehension of force. Conclusion: The court should find that Freda was involuntarily restrained for the purposes of the statue. Because to constitute false imprisonment there must be an exercise of force, or express or implied threat of force, by which in fact the person is deprived of his liberty and compelled to remain where he does not wish to remain, the threats showed, expressed and implied force and were sufficient to induce a reasonable apprehension of force.