False Imprisonment According to Law - Essay Example

The farmer detained the plaintiff in order to go and call the sheriff who was to act as a judge in this particular situation hence no false imprisonment. The law applied in this scenario is the tort law of false imprisonment.

This law protects personal interests when it comes to freedom against restraint of movement. According to this tort, the plaintiff must be confined consciously and within boundaries. For it to however qualify as false imprisonment, force must have been used and improper assertion of legal authority (Statsky 51). This case is similar to that of Herbst because in both cases, the detention of the plaintiffs was done as an effort to enable the defendant to call the authority to solve the case prior to the detention of the plaintiffs.

Before the detention, the plaintiffs in both cases were informed of the reason for the detention and what action was to be taken. In both cases also, the plaintiffs had invaded private property without announcing themselves first and without any permission hence according to the law, they were trespassing and therefore deserved to be detained by the owners of the properties pending further legal action by law enforcers (Statsky 52). The case is however different from that of Dupler. This is because Dupler had been given prior warning of the decision she was going to make after being relieved of the duties at the firm.

She had been given a dichotomous answer and the refusal to resign led her to be sacked (Statsky 50). It is also different in that her detainers were her former boss and workmates and not strangers and she had not trespassed any property like the situation with the above mentioned two cases. Unlike the other two scenarios before, Dupler had been detained without expecting any legal authorities to come hence it can be classified as false imprisonment. The above two cases show the difference between true false imprisonment and no false imprisonment.

This is however not easy to prove and therefore requires a lot of evidence to indicate it was indeed false imprisonment. This may take a while and hence some of these cases take years to be solved. It is however unlawful to detain an individual and especially if no clear reasons are stipulated and no action is given to follow the detention. This can result in the defendant paying a lot of money in damages to the plaintiff as was the case with the Dupler case.