Parvi v. City of Kingston
COA NY - 1977
- Police of D found two brothers fighting and a drunk P trying to calm them. P told D he had no place to go.
- D took P to the outskirts of town and left him there to sober up instead of arresting him. P wandered onto the highway and was hit by a car.
- P sued D for false imprisonment.
- D admitted at trial that he cannot remember the events of the night.
- Trial court found for D saying that false imprisonment requires the individual to be aware of the confinement.
- Appellate Court affirmed, found for D.
- COA NY reversed, found for P, found P was aware of the imprisonment.
- Is a D liable for falsely imprisoning a P when the P was not aware of the confinement at the time that it occurred?
- A D is not liable for falsely imprisoning a P when the P was not aware of the confinement at the time it occurred.
- False imprisonment is a dignitary tort and cannot be suffered unless one is aware of the dignitary invasion.
- The trial court utilized the correct law but did not examine the issue of awareness correctly.
- P mentioned at trial that that he had no recollection of what happened that night.
- Trial court failed to determine whether P did not recollect due to lapse of memory or whether P was not conscious of his confinement at the time it was occurring.
- Although P was drunk, it is not clear that he was unaware of his confinement.
- This is visible through P's responses to the police and his conversation with them at the time he was in the car.
- P has not made a case that he was even conscious of the confinement and that he failed to consent to it.
- For an action in false imprisonment, it is not required that the P remember the confinement at a later date. It is only necessary that the P be aware of the confinement at the time it occurred.
- Under the Restatement, this requirement is waived if the victim has suffered physical injury as a result of the confinement.