To: Professor Williams

From: Shahin Damoui

Re: Assignment #6; Ms. Bara’s Potential Claim for Emotional Distress
(Revised)
Date: June 9th, 2017

Question Presented

In a civil suit for false imprisonment under Arizona law, can plaintiff Ms.

Bara recover any damages for emotional injuries absent any physical injuries?

Brief Answer

Yes, although her injuries were non-physical in nature, emotional injuries

are compensable for false imprisonment claims. Ms. Bara was detained by the

defendants and was unable to tend to her unsupervised children. Ms. Bara

expressed concern for the safety of her young children, particularly her epileptic

son but defendants continued to block the exits. After being released, Ms. Bara

emotional injuries as a result of the false imprisonment. Therefore, court will likely

hold Ms. Bara is entitled to compensation for her emotional injuries.

Statement of Facts

Our client, Rose Bara, was home waiting for her mother-in-law to come over

and watch her two young children, one of whom is epileptic. Mrs. Shearer knocked

on Ms. Bara’s door claiming she needed help with a quick problem; Ms. Bara

obliged and left her residence leaving her children unsupervised.

1
 Upon entering the Shearers’ residence, Shearers accused Ms. Bara of

stealing their lawn ornament and refused to allow Ms. Bara to leave their

residence. Ms. Bara denied taking the ornament and informed the Defendants her

children were left alone and that her mother-in-law was coming over soon but the

defendants continued to block the exits. Ms. Bara again pleaded to leave and

reminded Shearers her son was epileptic and should not be left alone but the

defendants did not oblige. During the detainment, Ms. Bara’s mother-in-law

arrived to her residence and found her children alone. Ms. Bara’s mother-in-law

and other neighbors heard the Shearers’ accusations. After an hour and half, the

defendants released Ms. Bara and she returned home where her children were safe.

Discussion

A court will find Ms. Bara is entitled to recover damages for emotional

injuries during the false imprisonment. The general rule is that emotional injuries

are injuries for which compensation may be made. Boies v. Raynor, 89 Ariz. 257,

260, 361 P.2d 1, 3 (Ariz. 1961). Ms. Bara may also be entitled to compensation for

her children’s’ emotional harm because her children were “conscious of the

confinement or harmed by it.” Gau v. Smitty’s Super Valu, Inc., 183 Ariz. 107,

110, 901 P.2d 455, 459 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).

After a finding of false imprisonment, mental and emotional injuries are

compensable. Id. at 110, 901 P.2d at 459. In Boies v. Raynor, the plaintiff filed

2
action against deputies seeking damages for emotional and mental distress

following a false arrest. Raynor, 89 Ariz. at 260, 361 P.2d at 1. While unlawfully

arrested, the plaintiff expressed to the deputies his concern about his young

children’s safety who had to cross busy streets by themselves on their way to

school. Id. at 261, 361 P.2d at 1. The plaintiff also expressed concerns about his

pregnant wife’s health and concerns about the negative effect the arrest would have

on his reputation. Id. at 261, 361 P.2d at 1. The Court held plaintiff was entitled to

compensation for emotional injuries because he suffered anxiety about his wife,

children, and reputation as a result of the false arrest. Id. at 261, 361 P.2d at 1.

Furthermore, in Gau v. Smitty’s Super Valu, Inc., plaintiff and her young

child were detained for suspected shoplifting and filed suit against the store for

mental and emotional injuries. Smitty’s Super Valu, Inc., 183 Ariz. 107 at 110, 901

P.2d at 456. The court held, “Since the injury is in large part a mental one, the

plaintiff is entitled to damages for mental suffering, humiliation, and the like.” Id.

at 110, 901 P.2d at 456.

Akin to the plaintiff in Bois v. Raynor, Ms. Bara’s pleas and concerns for

her young children’s safety were consciously disregarded by the defendants.

Multiple times Ms. Barra stated to the defendants that she needs to go home to tend

to her unsupervised children and each time the defendants blocked the exit.

3
 Similar to the plaintiff in Gau v. Smitty’s Super Valu, Inc., Ms. Bara’s

unsupervised children were exposed to unnecessary trauma while she was

unlawfully detained. Ms. Bara’s children are not the plaintiffs of this action,

however, damages that flow foreseeably from false imprisonment of caretaker flow

equally foreseeable to accompanying young children. Ms. Bara told her children

she was leaving and would return quickly. When she did not return, it is likely her

children face emotional injuries that flow foreseeably to Ms. Bara.

Although the defense may argue the cause of action in Gau v. Smitty’s

Super Valu, Inc. was false arrest, courts utilize the same rules for false arrest and

false imprisonment claims. The defense may also argue Ms. Bara’s children were

not directly exposed to the trauma and may not have been aware their mother was

detained. However, before leaving to the defendants’ residence, Ms. Bara notified

her children “it would only take a minute,” and thus it is reasonable for her

children to become concerned.

Conclusion

A court will likely find Ms. Bara is entitled to recover damages for

emotional injuries during the false imprisonment.

Recommendation

Although this memorandum does not discuss the potential of a negligent

infliction of emotional distress claim, I believe it may be a claim to pursue. Since

4
the defendants likely acted intentionally and recklessly, Ms. Bara may have a

potential claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress.