False Imprisonment and Malicious Prosecution| Law of Torts Notes

False imprisonment and malicious prosecution are two essential torts under the law of torts. Both torts aim to protect personal liberty and ensure that individuals are not unjustly confined or wrongfully prosecuted. While false imprisonment involves unlawful restraint, malicious prosecution deals with the wrongful use of legal proceedings. Understanding these torts is crucial for legal professionals and students alike, as both have specific legal requirements and remedies.

False Imprisonment:

False imprisonment occurs when a person is unlawfully restrained or confined against their will, without any legal justification. The confinement can be physical, such as locking someone in a room, or it can be through coercion or threats that prevent a person from leaving. False imprisonment is an intentional tort, meaning the defendant must have intended to confine the plaintiff.

Essentials of False Imprisonment

1. Intentional Act: The defendant must have intentionally confined or restrained the plaintiff.
2. No Lawful Justification: The defendant must lack legal authority or justification for the restraint.
3. Knowledge of the plaintiff about his imprisonment is not essential.
   Merrings Case: Defendant D suspected M of stealing a Keg of Varnish. He asked two police-men who went to M and brought him to the defendant. M was put in a waiting room and the police were standing outside. Held : Though the plaintiff did not know that the police were outside, this amounted to false imprisonment
4. Complete Restraint: The plaintiff’s freedom of movement must be completely restricted. Partial restraint, such as blocking one path, is insufficient.
   • In Bird V. Jones. The defendant wrongfully covered a part of the road on a Bridge, put certain seats for spectators to see the regatta show on the river. P claimed over the fence without paying, but was prevented by D. Held : D not liable because the restraint was not complete. P could have taken the uncovered part of the road to go to the other side.
   • Herd V. Steel Co: In this case, P, a mine-worker came down the lift at 9-30 A.M. to the work-spot. As per rules he could go back at 4 P.M. using the lift. P was ordered to do a different job which he wrongfully refused. P demanded to be taken up but was prevented. He was detained for about 20 minutes. P sued D, the steel Company. Held : D not liable as there was no false imprisonment.
   • Robinson V. Bui main ferry Co. : P paid a penny to enter a Wharf of C. P was to wait until a boat came. He could take the journey on paying again a penny, to go to the other side. However, P refused to pay. Held : D not liable as the toll of a penny was reasonable and that D could prevent evasion of payments. There was no false imprisonment.

Example of False Imprisonment:

A security guard detaining someone in a store without reason or legal authority, refusing to let them leave, would constitute false imprisonment.

Recent Case Law on False Imprisonment:

• Saurabh Kumar v. Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. (2022): The Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of the plaintiff, who had been wrongfully detained by the police without any legal authority. The court held that detention without a valid reason or due process constitutes false imprisonment and awarded compensation to the plaintiff.

What is Malicious Prosecution in Tort Law?

Malicious prosecution occurs when a person is wrongfully subjected to legal proceedings without reasonable grounds, and those proceedings end in the person’s favor. This tort is intended to protect individuals from the misuse of the legal system. The plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted with malice, meaning that the legal action was initiated with an improper motive.

In Malicious prosecution the plaintiff must prove:

1. That the defendant prosecuted him in a Criminal court.
2. That the prosecution ended in favour of the plaintiff, i .e, he was acquitted.
3. That the prosecution lacked reasonable and probable cause.
4. That the defendant acted with malice.
5. That the damage resulted to the plaintiff.

Essentials explained:

1. There must be a prosecution by the defendant complaining against the plaintiff. This means at least summons must have been issued to appear before the court.
2. The plaintiff must prove that there was acquittal or discharge. If the plaintiff is convicted he cannot sue for Malicious prosecution. Similarly when the case is withdrawn under a compromise, no suit lies for Malicious prosecution.
3. There must be lack of reasonable and probable cause. In other words, it must be proved that at the time the charge was made there was no reasonable cause for the prosecution to proceed further. Objectively, the prosecutor must have a case which he believed to be true. This is to be judged from the standard of a reasonable man. Mere suspicion is not enough. Further, dismissal or acquittal by the court will not create a presumption of malice, or reasonable cause. It must be proved as a “Fact” that there was no probable Cause.
   • In Dr. Abarth V. North Eastern Railways: A sued the Railways for personal injuries suffered by him in a Railway collision. He got a large sum as compensation. The Railway Directors relying on information that Dr. Abarth manufactured symptoms of injury of A, instituted an enquiry. They found sufficient ground against Dr. Abarth. They prosecuted him, but he was acquitted. Thereupon, Dr. Abarth sued the Directors for Malicious Prosecution. Held : Not liable. Reason : The Directors had taken reasonable care and also had honestly believed in the case.
4. Malice: This must be proved by the plaintiff. If the objective of the defendant is vindictive or to tarnish the name of a person or purely personal or prejudicial, then there is Malice.
5. The damage must be proved, that is, the damage of man’s fame, or of the safety of his person, or of the security of his property. There may be a moral stigma attached. Eg., D prosecutes P for forgery but P is acquitted, thereupon P may sue D for Malicious prosecution.