17 False Imprisonment
A. Definition
False imprisonment is the deprivation of one's liberty without lawful justification.1 It is an intentional tort,2 and negligence is, therefore, not an element.3
B. Elements
To prove a claim for false imprisonment, the evidence must show:
(1) that the defendant restrained the plaintiff;
(2) the restraint was intentional; and
(3) the restraint was unlawful.4
C. Elements Defined
1. Restraint
(a) Words or Acts
Restraint constituting a false imprisonment may be by "words alone or acts alone, or by both, and may operate merely on the will of the individual, or by personal violence, or by both."5 It is not necessary that the individual be confined within a prison, or within walls, or that he be assaulted, or even touched.6 The tort is not limited to instances of actual physical interference with liberty.7 It is not necessary that there should be any injury done to the individual's person, or to his character, or reputation.8 Nor is it necessary that the wrongful act be committed with malice, ill-will, or even with the slightest wrongful intention.9
(b) Use of Force
A use of force is not necessary in a claim for false imprisonment.10 Any genuine restraint constitutes an actionable imprisonment, "although effected without actual contact with the person."11 In fact, force may even be used in an authorized restraint so long as it is reasonable.12
(c) Awareness of Restraint
Whether or not consciousness or awareness of the restraint is a requirement for a successful claim of false imprisonment has yet to be debated in South Carolina.
2. Intentional Restraint
The requirement of intent necessary to establish a claim of false imprisonment is the intent to cause a confinement.13 South Carolina courts do not appear to have addressed this issue directly.14
3. Unlawful Restraint
An action for false imprisonment cannot be maintained where one is arrested by lawful authority.15 The fundamental issue in determining the lawfulness of an arrest is whether there was "probable cause." If the plaintiff fails to show a lack of probable cause for the arrest, the action cannot be maintained.16 Arrest pursuant to facially valid warrant precludes the claim.17 If the arresting officers possess a good faith belief that a person is the individual who has committed the crime alleged in the arrest warrant affidavit, there can be no false imprisonment even though they arrest the wrong person.18 The defendant may rely on an uncharged offense to establish probable cause.19
The authority necessary to constitute a lawful detention need not be express, such as when special circumstances are present which may justify an otherwise unreasonable detention.20
One confined pursuant to an authorized mental health commitment proceeding may not recover for false imprisonment, even when the order of commitment is erroneously made; if the order is valid on its face and issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, the detention is not a false imprisonment.21
D. Defenses
1. Consent
According to the court in Gathers v. Harris-Teeter,22 "[n]o one can enforce a right arising out of a transaction which he has voluntarily assented to."23 If a plaintiff voluntarily limits his freedom, he cannot claim false imprisonment. Where the evidence as to whether consent was given is conflicting, ambiguous, or inconsistent, it becomes a question of fact for the jury. 24
2. Authorization
The South Carolina Legislature has specifically provided authority for individuals arresting under certain circumstances to make lawful arrests.25 This protection extends to private citizens and merchants as well as to law enforcement officials.26 First, law enforcement officials have been given broad authority to make arrests.27 Additionally, citizens may make arrests if specific contingencies are met.28
The South Carolina legislature has even provided extra protection for merchants and their employees who stop suspected shoplifters.29 The critical aspect of the Shoplifter Defense appears to revolve around the reasonable cause requirement.30 For example, in Gathers v. Harris Teeter Supermarket, Inc., the Court of Appeals interpreted "reasonable cause" to mean "probable cause," defined as a "good faith belief that a person is guilty of a crime when this belief rests on such grounds as would induce an ordinarily prudent and cautious man, under the circumstances, to believe likewise."31
Additionally, in determining probable cause, only those facts and circumstances that were or should have been known to the defendant at the time the plaintiff was stopped should be considered.32 Probable cause exists even if the facts relied on subsequently prove to be false or incorrect as long as the facts known at the time plaintiff was stopped would have induced a reasonable and prudent person to believe plaintiff was guilty of the crime of shoplifting and a reasonable person would have relied on those facts.33 The facts known to the defendant must only give rise to a reasonable inference that the person delayed was guilty of shoplifting.34
Finally, as long as a party has legal authority to confine, an action for false imprisonment cannot be maintained against either the party imposing or causing the confinement as long as good faith is involved.35
3. Good Faith
The good faith of the defendant is not a defense to an action for false imprisonment.36
South Carolina Code § 15-3-550 provides for a two-year limitation for an action for libel, slander, or false imprisonment.37 Federal courts however, have said a three-year statute of limitations applies to civil rights claims of false imprisonment.38 False imprisonment is detention without legal process and a federal court has said the limitations period begins to run when the alleged false imprisonment ends.39
While common law charitable immunity was eliminated by the South Carolina Supreme Court in 1981,40 the decision does not have retroactive application.41 There is a statutory limitation on liability for charitable organizations.42 A "charitable organization" is any organization, institution, association, society, or corporation which is exempt from taxation pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) or (d).43 A person "sustaining injury or dying"44as a result of a tortious act of commission or omission by an employee45 of a charitable organization acting within the scope of his or her employment, may recover no more than the liability imposed under the Tort Claims Act46 for actual damages sustained. Unless it is proved that the employee acted recklessly, willfully, or in gross negligence, an action against the charitable organization is a complete bar to recovery against the employee.47
Comparative negligence is apparently no defense to false imprisonment.48
A federal court has found that a false imprisonment claim is not barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act.49
E. Remedies
Both actual50 and punitive damages51 may be awarded for false imprisonment.52 An award of $75,000 in actual damages and $100,000 in punitive damages was characterized as large but not grossly excessive where the plaintiff was neither searched nor touched and was detained for no more than 15 minutes.53 The Federal District Court for South Carolina awarded $22,500 to a plaintiff who suffered a one week deprivation of liberty.54
--------
Notes:
[1] Jones by Robinson v. Winn Dixie Greenville, Inc., 319 S.C. 171, 456 S.E.2d 429 (1995); Caldwell v. K-Mart Corp., 306 S.C. 27, 410 S.E.2d 21 (Ct. App. 1991); Gist v. Berkeley County Sheriff's Dep't, 336 S.C. 611, 521 S.E.2d 163 (Ct. App. 1999).
[2] Consider Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Pers. Touch Med Spa, LLC, 763 F. Supp. 2d 769 (D.S.C. 2011) (false imprisonment is considered intentional tort that perpetrator often intends to cause bodily injury, however, one can arguably be liable without having intended to cause bodily injury).
[3] Gist v. Berkeley County Sheriff's Dep't, 336 S.C. 611, 521 S.E.2d 163 (Ct. App. 1999) citing Jeffcoat v. Caine, 261 S.C. 75, 198 S.E.2d 258 (1973).
[4] Jones by Robinson v. Winn Dixie Greenville, Inc., 456 S.E.2d at 432; Andrews v. Piedmont Airlines, Inc., 297 S.C. 367, 377 S.E.2d 127 (Ct. App. 1989); Caldwell v. K-Mart Corp., 306 S.C. 27, 410 S.E.2d 21 (Ct. App. 1991); Westbrook v. Hutchinson, 195 S.C. 101, 10 S.E.2d 145 (1940).
In Jackson v. City of Abbeville, 366 S.C. 662, 623 S.E.2d 656 (Ct. App. 2005) the court said that "an essential element" of a false imprisonment cause of action is lack of probable cause. The court cited Gist v. Berkeley County Sheriff's Dep't, 336 S.C. 611, 521 S.E.2d 163 (Ct. App. 1999) for that proposition. However, Gist did not make lack of probable cause a separate element, rather, the court there said that an action for false imprisonment may not be maintained when the plaintiff was arrested by lawful authority, and the fundamental issue in determining the lawfulness of the arrest is whether there was "probable cause" for it. Without specifically saying so, the Gist court subsumed probable cause in the third element.
[5] Westbrook, 10 S.E.2d at 148.
[6] Id. See also Caldwell v. K-Mart Corp., 306 S.C. 27, 410 S.E.2d 21, 25 (Ct. App. 1991) (plaintiff neither searched nor touched and was detained for no more than 15 minutes).
[7] Zimbelman v. Savage, 745 F. Supp. 2d 664 (D.S.C. 2010) (while the term false imprisonment...
