False Imprisonment

[lawnic]

If a woman willingly enters a magicians "box" thinking it is a job interview to be his sidekick, is told she will be confined for under 3 minutes, and is actually only confined for 2.5 minutes, can she sue for false imprisonment if she finds out later that the magician is not actually a magician but a man who gets a thrill from locking women in a box? Did she consent by fraud? Because she willingly entered the box, was not kept in the box longer then the time stated, and was not harmed in any way, is this false imprisonment?  Thanks.

[barond]

I would argue its not false imprisonment. At the time she entered the box, she thought it was a short job interview and she didn't know the fake magician got a thrill from this until afterwards.

[Denny Shore]

False imprisonment requires that the "victim" knows she is being imprisoned against her will, amongst other things.  That means willingly agreeing to be restrained removes false imprisonment at law, until or unless she is prevented from escaping the situation, at which time it becomes an unlawful restraint and qualifies under the remaining elements.  False imprisonment is the intentional infliction of confinement under false authority.  The P must know of the confinement or must suffer actual harm from the confinement.  Additionally, it must be done against the P's will.  In the hypo provided, the P consented to the act and thus was not subjected to it against her will (no deprivation of liberty).  The duty to release was not breached.  Therefore, this is not a case of false imprisonment.  Fraud?  Perhaps.

[Thistle]

hmmm......

elements of fraud:

   1. a representation of an existing fact;
   2. its materiality;
   3. its falsity;
   4. the speaker's knowledge of its falsity;
   5. the speaker's intent that it shall be acted upon by the plaintiff;
   6. plaintiff's ignorance of its falsity;
   7. plaintiff's reliance on the truth of the representation;
   8. plaintiff's right to rely upon it; and
   9. consequent damages suffered by plaintiff.

we are fine with meeting each element until we get to number 9 -- what are the damages?

[cooleylawstudent]

This question is basicly word for word from my midterm last week, I take it your school had the same questions on yours too?

If a woman willingly enters a magicians "box" thinking it is a job interview to be his sidekick, is told she will be confined for under 3 minutes, and is actually only confined for 2.5 minutes, can she sue for false imprisonment if she finds out later that the magician is not actually a magician but a man who gets a thrill from locking women in a box? Did she consent by fraud? Because she willingly entered the box, was not kept in the box longer then the time stated, and was not harmed in any way, is this false imprisonment?  Thanks.

[Julie Fern]

this must happen lot, julie figure.

[Thistle]

this must happen lot, julie figure.

yeah but its usually a magician getting into *her* box....

[cooleylawstudent]

I've noticed other example where its small details  of varience, such as Red Car instead of Blue truck but same basic story too.

[Denny Shore]

First of all, a special thank you to - for posting false statements attributed to a response to this thread in another as an example of how dumb I am.  He asserts that I got the "false imprisonment" thing wrong and attacks my education.  Of course, I was correct about false imprisonment.  He was referring to my response regarding fraud, where I said, "Fraud?  Perhaps."
So, because I've been too busy to answer his post (apparently, I am required by some code to do so because he is an important fella), here is my response.
Specifically, damages:  the damages element is the weakest, but could be argued.  The woman could claim damages, such as lost wages (if she quit her job to audition for the job of assistant when no such job existed) or loss of income (if she took time off of work to audition for a fake job).  Also, she may be able to establish a cause of action based on reliance or other costs (for example, she purchased a fancy outfit for the audition).  I agree that fraud is a weak argument, but it is stronger than F.I. 
Now, if you please, let's try not to follow posters into other threads to talk smack about them merely because they didn't respond quickly enough to your posting.  Some of us actually go to school, study hard, and have memo's due, all of which may prevent us from visiting the site 90 times a day to see if anyone is looking to start an internet fight.  And to correct you again, I didn't get the false imprisonment question wrong, I got it right.  You just didn't like the fact that I mentioned the possibility of fraud (mostly because you seem happy to think only inside your own box).  While fraud isn't the STRONGEST argument, it qualifies for a "perhaps."  As in "perhaps the case for fraud could be made".  Granted, it would require more information, but I've gotten awesome grades on essays merely because after answering the question spouting rules, I've explored other ideas that showed my ability to apply the law to hypos.  Since I doubt the question was a "yes/no" midterm question (in which case the answer would be 'no'), exploring other possibilities would certainly prove to a professor that you've been paying attention.

[Thistle]

i would have pled fraud in a real life state court complaint.  throw it out there, see what sticks.