Lopez v. Winchell's Donut House

Illinois Appellate Court · 1984 · Torts

TortsFalse ImprisonmentSummary Judgmentfalse imprisonmentunlawful restraintconsentmoral pressuresummary judgment

Facts

Plaintiff, a clerk at defendant's donut shop, was called to the store by James Cesario and, after arriving, accompanied him to the baking room where Ralph Bell was also present. In the room, the two men accused her of failing to ring up donut sales and said they had proof, while plaintiff stated the door was closed and latched. Plaintiff testified in her deposition that she voluntarily went to the room, was never threatened with loss of her job or with physical harm, never feared for her safety, was never prevented from leaving, and got up and left when she decided to do so. In response to summary judgment, she averred only that she left after beginning to shake and feel ill and that she was terminated from employment.

Issue

Whether a genuine issue of material fact existed on plaintiff's false imprisonment claim where her own sworn deposition showed that she voluntarily accompanied defendant's employees, remained to protect her reputation, and left when she chose. More specifically, the question was whether those facts could amount to restraint against her will sufficient for false imprisonment.

Rule

False imprisonment is the unlawful restraint of an individual's personal liberty or freedom of movement. The confinement must be against the plaintiff's will and must involve actual or legal intent to restrain, such as restraint by physical barriers, physical force, threats of physical force, other duress, or asserted legal authority; voluntary consent defeats the claim, and mere moral pressure to remain and clear oneself of suspicion is not enough.

🔒

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.

In Columbus, Ohio, grocery clerk Nina Patel was asked by her supervisor and a regional auditor to step into a stockroom to discuss missing receipts. They accused her of taking cash, spoke harshly, and refused to show her the records, but they did not touch her, threaten her, or block the doorway; she stayed because she wanted to clear her name and walked out after ten minutes.

If Nina sues for false imprisonment, which is the best result?

Explanation. False imprisonment requires unlawful restraint of personal liberty against the plaintiff's will. Under the majority rule, moral pressure to remain and clear oneself of suspicion is not enough absent force, threats of force, other duress, physical barriers, or asserted legal authority. Nina stayed voluntarily and left when she chose, so the claim fails.