Law of Torts

Whether Abu would succeed in an action for false imprisonment against
the ABC cafeteria proprietor?
Based on Termes de la Lay, false imprisonment is defined as the restriction
of a person’s freedom of movement. The person is so restrained is imprisoned so
long as he cannot move another place in accordance with his wishes. Thus, false
imprisonment is the infliction of bodily restraint which causes the confinement of
the plaintiff with an area determined by the defendant ,which is not expressly or
impliedly authorized by law.
Next, in order to establish the false imprisonment, the three main
elements must be fulfilled. First, the mental state of defendant. This means the
defendant must intend to do an act which directly results in the confinement of the
plaintiff. The relevant case is W Elphinston v Lee Leng San where the court held,
false imprisonment cannot be established through negligence, intention of the doer
is prequisite.
Next, the restraint must be a direct consequence of the defendant’s act
which means the only person who directly causes the confinement may be
successfully sued for the false imprisonment.
Besides, the restraint must be complete. The relevant case is Bird v Jones
where a part of bridge was appropriated for seats for a regatta. The plaintiff insisted
on passing along the part so appropriated. The defendant stopped the plaintiff and
directed him to take another route in order to proceed to the other side of the
bridge. The plaintiff refused and remained there for half an hour. The court held that
there was no false imprisonment as the restraint was not complete.
The principle is when there is a reasonable way out, it must be used and
the plaintiff cannot in those circumstances, claim that his liberty has been
restrained.
Next, the knowledge of the plaintiff. Based on case of Meering v GrahameWhite Aviation Co Ltd, the plaintiff was suspected of stealing varnish from his
workplace, the defendant’s premise. Following this suspicion, the defendant called
the police to stay around the office area and not allow the plaintiff to leave the
same. The plaintiff was later proven to be innocent. In an action for false
imprisonment, in which the plaintiff succeeded,it was stated a person can be
imprisoned without him knowing it. He can be imprisoned while he is
asleep,drunken,unconscious or lunatic. Plus, the fact he aware or not aware of the
imprisonment will only result in the variation in the amount of damages.
In this case, Abu has fallen asleep in ABC cafeteria after he drink a glass of
brandy. This shows that he was unaware at the time he was asleep that he was
being imprisoned. In an action for false imprisonment, the fact he aware or not
aware of the imprisonment will only result in variation in the amount of damages.
Siti Fatimah Zahrah Saidi - Wan Nur Dayini Izzati Wan Mohd Izani-Balqis SallehAizatul Rusyda Ahmad Pauzi - Wan Nur Shazlina Wan Hanafi - Nurul Wafda Mohd
Sabri - Wan Azulaini Wan Azman

Law of Torts
But later, he became aware that he has been locked in the café after he woke up at
3 am and discover the door had been locked. But, in this case Abu does not try to
find a reasonable way out of the café instead he just choose to spent the night in
the cafeteria when in fact there is another exit through the kitchen for him to get
out. When there is a reasonable way out, it must be used and the plaintiff cannot in
those circumstances claim that his liberty has been restrained. Plus, in this
situation, the ABC cafeteria proprietor has been negligently locked Abu in the café.
The false imprisoned cannot be established through negligent, defendant’s intention
is prequisite. The proprietor has no intention at all to locked Abu in the café. The
reason he locked the café is just his duty as the business hour has ended for that
day and not to imprisoned Abu. So, if there is no intention it cannot be said that
there is a direct consequence from ABC cafeteria proprietor to falsely imprisoned
Abu. Besides, if the proprietor did have the intention to imprisoned Abu, he will still
exempted from the false imprisonment as there is a reasonable way out for Abu to
get out of the café. So, there is no elements of false imprisonment have been
fulfilled.
In a nutshell, Abu will not succeed in an action for false imprisonment
against the ABC cafeteria proprietor.

Siti Fatimah Zahrah Saidi - Wan Nur Dayini Izzati Wan Mohd Izani-Balqis SallehAizatul Rusyda Ahmad Pauzi - Wan Nur Shazlina Wan Hanafi - Nurul Wafda Mohd
Sabri - Wan Azulaini Wan Azman