LAW CASE STUDY

MR. BOWER CONFINEMENT CASE, AN OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS

Introduction

A retired aged man, Mr. Bower was sent to an old home named Day Break where he had to live in a small room of 1st wing with few of his belongings and was not allowed going outside or making any phone calls. He hated everything about that Day Break and tried to escape from there but failed and was sent to 2nd wing where he was not permitted to keep his personal belongings with him as well. He managed to escape from Day Break on Christmas Eve as the staff was short because of Christmas. Now, he is suing Day Break on the grounds of false imprisonment.

According to the law, False imprisonment is a restraint of a person who is bounded in an area without any consent or justification. In order to prove the claim of false imprisonment, a plaintiff has to prove that

(1) defendant intended to confine them

(2) the plaintiff was conscious of the confinement

(3) the plaintiff did not consent

(4) the confinement was not otherwise privileged

Discussion

Intent to Confine

The Day Break center was not allowing Bower to go away from the Day Break, because they were saying that Bower did not had any home to go neither there was any person who could have taken Bower home.

Issue: Day Break was not allowing Bower to go away from the center citing various reasons for this. Does this show Intent of confinement?

Rule: The confiner must show the intent to confine the victim, the intent can be shown through implicit means also.

Analysis: Day Break had made an agreement with Bower that Day Break will take care of Bower until someone from Bower's family comes to take him. This agreement was tying Day Break center to keep Bower at their center and not allow him to go away from the center. All the efforts from the side of Daybreak were because they were under a legal bound to keep Bower safe and sound. In the Arrington case, the plaintiff said that the company had the intent to confine them, but on cross questioning they told the police that when they were being questioned by the security about the submission of false time sheets, they thought that the doors were locked and they weren't allowed to leave without giving satisfying answers and police would be called to arrest them. They weren't fulfilling this condition that the confiner was showing the intent to confine.

Conclusion: After analyzing the given facts, there was no intention from Day Break to confine Bower. Whatever they did was to fulfill their duty and Bower safe and sound. Bower's case is not fulfilling this condition of the law of false imprisonment. Taking reference from the Talcott case, when talcott could not manage to get out of the stadium because of a huge crowd coming in and he sued the company because they did not showed him an exit. The court ruled in favour of the company because they did not intend to keep him ...