Whittaker v. Sandford

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1912 · Torts

TortsFalse imprisonmentfalse imprisonmentphysical restraintno physical force requiredboat as keyintentional refusalconfinement on vessel

Facts

The plaintiff, a former member of the defendant's religious movement, agreed to return from Jaffa to America aboard the defendant's yacht after the defendant repeatedly assured her she would be free to leave when they reached shore. After the yacht reached Maine, the plaintiff claimed that from May 10 to June 6, 1910, the defendant personally refused to furnish her a boat to go ashore, even though a small boat was the only practical way to leave the anchored yacht. The plaintiff also presented evidence that the defendant exercised powerful control over members of the movement, including her husband, and that requests to leave were effectively blocked. She ultimately obtained release through habeas corpus and was taken from the yacht by a sheriff.

Issue

Can a defendant be liable for false imprisonment when he does not use direct physical force on the plaintiff, but intentionally refuses to provide the only available means of leaving a vessel and thereby physically restrains her? Also, were the habeas corpus record and evidence of the defendant's religious authority admissible on the issues of restraint and control?

Rule

False imprisonment requires actual physical restraint, but not necessarily physical force upon the person. A person may be physically restrained when another who controls the only practical means of exit intentionally refuses to provide it, thereby creating a physical barrier to escape. Evidence showing resort to habeas corpus and evidence bearing on the defendant's authority and control are admissible when relevant to whether restraint existed and whether the defendant had power to effect it.

🔒

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.

Nina Patel accepted an invitation to stay aboard a private research vessel anchored in Boston Harbor. When she later demanded to go ashore, Owen Mercer, who controlled the vessel's only launch, refused to let anyone take her to land, and the cold water and distance made swimming impracticable.

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

Explanation. False imprisonment requires actual physical restraint, but not necessarily force applied to the person. When a defendant controls the only practical means of leaving a confined place and intentionally refuses it, that refusal functions like locking a door. Here, the launch is the equivalent of the key, so a jury could find physical restraint even without touching Nina.