FACTS:
(According to Garratt) The child Defendant was visiting adult Plaintiff in the backyard in July 1951. Plaintiff accused the Defendant of intentionally pulling chair out from under her, resulting in a fractured hip and $11,000 in medical bills.
FACTS:
(According to Dailey) The Defendant picked up a lawn chair in the backyard, moved it sideways a few feet and seated himself. The Defendant discovered the Plaintiff about to sit down where the chair had formerly been, when he hurriedly got up to put chair back towards Plaintiff.
ISSUE:
Did the Defendant know with substantial certainty that the Plaintiff was trying to sit down?
RULE:
Yes. A party is liable for battery when he is substantially certain that…show more content… Hock
FACTS:
The Defendant was a police officer and had been informed that the Plaintiff had stolen a pair of shoes from a burning store. The Defendants went to the Plaintiff’s home to arrest the Defendant. The Plaintiff denied stealing the shoes, but agreed to go with the Defendants to answer the charge. The Defendants told the Plaintiff that he could go in the morning as long as he promised to show up. The Plaintiff went the next morning, however there was no warrant and no accusation made for the Plaintiff stealing the shoes.
ISSUE:
Does the arrest of someone by a police officer without a warrant constitute for false imprisonment, even though there was no physical restraint?
RULE:
Yes. An arrest is unlawful when the police officers did not have probable cause to make an arrest. This can be found to be false imprisonment.
REASONING:
The tort of false imprisonment states that one must be intentionally restraining someone’s liberty against his or her will by confinement. An unlawful arrest is the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another without legal authority. To prove a false arrest, the detainee must prove that the arrest is unlawful. In Martin v. Hock, the court found that the Defendants did not have the legal authority to initially arrest the Plaintiff. This led to court to find the Defendants guilty of false imprisonment, regardless that the Plaintiff was not taken into
