This is a Complaint pleading for use in litigation of the title matter. Adapt this form to comply with your facts and circumstances, and with your specific state law. Not recommended for use by non-attorneys.
False Imprisonment For Tort In Clark
Category:
State:
Multi-State
County:
Clark
Control #:
US-000280
Format:
Word;
Rich Text
Instant download
Description
Free preview
Form popularity
FAQ
A foreseeable risk which a reasonable man would avoid (negligence), and becomes a substantial certainty." In the latter case, the intent is legally implied and becomes and assault rather than unintentional negligence.
The tort of false imprisonment is a cause of action in civil law that occurs when a person is held, physically or otherwise, against the will and consent of the person. False imprisonment is often confused with false arrest which is a criminal law concept.
False imprisonment is a tort of negligence. False imprisonment is an intentional tort. It is the intentional unjustified confinement of a nonconsenting person. Claims of false imprisonment stem most frequently in business from instances of shoplifting.
Remember that intent in support of the prima facie case for an intentional tort is established by proof of either specific intent or general intent. Specific intent is established by proof that the actor desired to bring about a result that will invade the interests of another in a way that the law forbids.
To prove a prima facie case of false imprisonment, the following elements need demonstration: An act that completely confines a plaintiff within fixed boundaries. An intention to confine. Defendant is responsible for or the cause of the confinement.
For example, in Garratt v. Dailey (1955), the Washington Supreme Court remanded a case back to the lower courts to determine whether or not the five year-old defendant "knew with substantial certainty that the plaintiff would attempt to sit down where the chair which he moved had been."
In law, the substantial certainty doctrine is the assumption of intent even if the actor did not intend the result, but knew with substantial certainty the effect would occur as a result of his action. The doctrine can be used by courts as a test to determine whether or not a defendant committed a tort.
This chapter addresses the four intentional torts, assault, battery, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, that involve injury to persons—what some call the “dignitary” torts.
Do you want to hold another party accountable for their negligent behavior? Doing so means you and your lawyer must prove the five elements of negligence: duty, breach of duty, cause, in fact, proximate cause, and harm.
A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the tortfeasor – the person who commits the tortious act. The wrongs can result in physical injuries, psychological injuries, financial losses, or property damage.
