Hardy v. LaBelle's Distributing Co.

Supreme Court of Montana · 1983 · Torts

Tortsfalse imprisonmentshopkeeper's privilegeconsentfalse imprisonmentrestraint against willunlawful restraintvoluntary compliance

Facts

LaBelle's hired Hardy as a temporary jewelry sales clerk on December 1, 1978. After another employee reported believing she saw Hardy steal a watch, Hardy was brought to the showroom manager's office the next morning under the pretense of a store tour and was told she had been accused of theft. Hardy denied taking the watch, agreed to take a lie detector test, and the meeting lasted about twenty to forty-five minutes according to conflicting testimony. Hardy later claimed she had been wrongfully detained against her will during the questioning.

Issue

Whether sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict that Hardy was not falsely imprisoned, and whether the District Court erred in instructing the jury on false imprisonment and detention for theft investigation.

Rule

The two key elements of false imprisonment are restraint of an individual against his will and the unlawfulness of that restraint. Restraint may be accomplished by acts or by words that the person fears to disregard, but there is no false imprisonment if the plaintiff voluntarily complies with a request to remain. A store employee may temporarily detain another person to investigate a theft only upon probable cause, and an employer upon reasonable cause may request a police investigation.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a department store in Boise, Nina Patel was asked by floor supervisor Owen Kerr to step into a back office because a scarf was missing. Inside, Owen and a security clerk told Nina about the accusation; Nina said she wanted to stay and sort it out, was never told she could not leave, and did not ask to leave during the 25-minute conversation.

If Nina sues for false imprisonment, which is the strongest argument for the store?

Explanation. False imprisonment requires restraint against the plaintiff's will and unlawfulness of the restraint. The majority stated that no false imprisonment occurs where the plaintiff voluntarily complies with a request to remain, especially where she wanted to stay, did not ask to leave, was not told she could not leave, and was not threatened. Physical force is not required, but neither is it necessary if the person stayed voluntarily.