Caroline Hecker

Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc., 424 S.W.2d 627 (1967)

FACTS: Plaintiff, who was black, allegedly attended a conference at defendant’s hotel,
which included a luncheon. An employee of the defendant allegedly grabbed the plate
from plaintiff’s hand reasoning and yelling that no Negro could be served in the club.
Although the Plaintiff was not physically touched nor did he sustain any physical injuries,
he alleged that he did feel humiliation and emotional distress.

ISSUE: Did the action of the defendant grabbing an object from the plaintiff’s hand in an
offensive manner constitute as battery even though there was no physical contact made
with the plaintiff?

RULE: Yes. Physical bodily contact of a person or their clothes is not necessary for the
action to constitute as battery when the action includes touching anything connected with
the person in an offensive manner.

ANAYLSIS: For an action to be considered battery, the action must result in bodily
contact. This bodily contact does not need to be literal contact of a person’s body, but at
least a forceful invasion of an extension of a person’s body. If a person feels a violation
of his space or self, that person does not need to prove his or her body was literally
touched, just that there was an unpermitted disturbance placed upon anything connected
to the person. This is because a person can still endure mental and emotional suffering of
an unpermitted invasion without having physical evidence of contact to the body. The
nature of battery is to inflict humiliation. Therefore, a person who committed battery is
responsible for the contact that could do physical harm and also the emotional harm
caused by the offensive and abusive behavior. In this case, the plate being held by the
plaintiff was considered an extension of the person’s body, so when it was grabbed, there
was contact of the plaintiff’s body.

CONCLUSION: Judgment for the plaintiff affirmed; the judgments of the lower courts
were reversed.
 Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hill, 25 Ala.App. 540, 150 So. 709 (1933)

FACTS: Plaintiff alleged that he entered the office of the defense to remind defendant
that he was under contract to fix his clock. An agent of the defense, who was allegedly
under the influence of whiskey, made attempts to place his hand on the plaintiff’s wife
from across a counter. The contact attempts were paired with claims that if she let him
love and pet her, then he would fix her clock. The plaintiff and defense were separated by
a counter.

ISSUE: Was the plaintiff placed in reasonable apprehension to believe an assault was to
occur when the defendant made apparent attempts to touch her, even though there was an
obstruction that would have blocked his attempts?

RULE: Yes, The individual’s actions constituted as an assault. The defendant’s apparent
ability to physically touch the plaintiff is irrelevant. As long as the only reason the assault
would not occur is because of an intervening factor and it is reasonable for the plaintiff to
fear intentional, unpermitted contact, then the action constitutes as assault. The jury
decides whether there was reasonable apprehension on part of the plaintiff given the
circumstances. However, the individual agent was not liable because the individual was
not acting under the scope of his employer.

ANAYLSIS: An assault must be an attempt to cause battery, or an attempt to make

bodily contact. The only reason the action would be incomplete would be as result of
some outside factor, not on the decision of the person trying to commit the assault. In this
case, the outside factor was the counter between the plaintiff and the defendant. If
evidence shows that a defendant’s attempts to touch the plaintiff would have ended in
literal contact if not for an intervening factor, then it is assault. However, if evidence
shows that there could have more effort on a person’s part to make physical contact with
another, then it would not be considered assault. This judgment is to be decided based on
the evidence of the case and the circumstances.

CONCLUSION: The trial court’s decision is reversed. Although an assault did occur, the
defendant did not act within the scope of his employment. The ruling of assault
conducted by Western Union Telegraph Co. was reversed and the case was remanded.
 Faniel v. Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co. of Maryland, 404 A.2d 147 (1979)

FACTS: The plaintiff alleged that she was accused by the defense of having an
unauthorized piece of equipment in her home that belonged to the defense, her employer.
She alleged that her employer said that it was necessary that they go to her house.
Plaintiff did not object because she allegedly felt she had to go and could not say no.
During the trip to her house, the defendant stopped to pick up security guards; the
plaintiff did not object to this stop either. Plaintiff alleged she was held unlawfully in the
car and in her home.

ISSUE: Was the plaintiff held against her will feeling that she had to participate in the car
trip to her home even though she never voiced that she did not want to go?

RULE: No. The plaintiff was not held in constraint against her will because a reasonable
person would be aware of the option to say no and refuse the confinement in the car trip
and in her home.

ANAYLSIS: False imprisonment requires that a person be held against his or her will. A
person’s compliance to one’s directions, which were not backed by any force or threat,
without any objection or lack of consent would not constitute as false imprisonment. In
this case, the defendant told the plaintiff that a trip to her home was mandatory, but did
not follow course with any threat if it did not occur. From a responsible person’s
perspective, the plaintiff had the opportunity to deny the trip to her house or ask to be let
out of the confinement of the car, but never voiced any objection to either. Although the
plaintiff feared her job might have been at stake had she denied the trip, this fear is not a
legal justification for refusing to object to someone’s demand without explicit threat.

CONCLUSION: The court of appeals upheld the judge of the lower court, in favor of the
defendant.
 Whittaker v. Sandford, 110 Me. 77, 85 A. 399 (1912)

FACTS: The plaintiff belonged to a religious group in Syria, when she alleged she had
intentions to leave the group and go back to America. The defendant allegedly asked
plaintiff to return to America on his yacht instead of another form of transportation. The
defendant allegedly made comments to the plaintiff that she would not be let off the yacht
until she was won by the religious movement again. Then, however, the defendant
claimed consistently that the plaintiff would not be detained on the yacht. When the
plaintiff and defendant arrived at the port, the defendant denied the plaintiff a boat to
leave the yacht; the plaintiff stayed on the yacht for about a month.

ISSUE: Did the defendant confine and/or constrict the plaintiff when he refused to give
her transportation to successfully leave his yacht, even though the plaintiff was not
constrained in a physical space?

RULE: Yes. Although the defendant did not literally turn the key in a door to lock the
plaintiff in a room, the plaintiff’s liberty was still constrained intentionally beyond her
will by being refused transportation to leave the yacht. The defendant did not have an
obligation to bring the plaintiff to America, but did have a responsibility to give her
adequate transportation to reach the shore under the circumstances. If the defendant is
found personally denying the plaintiff’s personal right to leave the boat and go ashore,
then the denial would be actionable.

ANAYLSIS: To constitute as false imprisonment, constraint or confinement of an

individual must take place. False imprisonment does not require an individual be held in
a room for the restraint to constitute as false imprisonment. Just because the person is not
locked into a room by another does not mean he or she is not physically constrained
beyond his or her will. In this case, the plaintiff had a personal right to make it to shore;
however, she was prevented from doing so by being refused transportation by the
defendant. The plaintiff had no other way to make it to shore without the help of the
defendant’s boat because of the physical barrier: the ocean. The defendant knew that the
plaintiff would have no other way to get to shore without his boat. His refusal to provide
transportation was wrong; he is liable for the plaintiff’s confined liberty against her will.

CONCLUSION: The defendant’s appeal was denied. The jury properly found that
defendant was responsible of false imprisonment.