Dupler v. Seubert, 69 Wis. 2d 373, (1975)

NAME:

Dupler v. Seubert, 69 Wis. 2d 373, (1975)

FACTS:
· π, a CSR at a telephone company was asked by Δ to come to Peterson’s office, and after the door was closed, was given the option of either resigning or be fired
· π refused to resign
· At 5PM π attempted to leave (feeling sick) but Peterson told her to sit down in “a very loud harsh voice,” and when she got up to leave (about to vomit) Δ stood in front of the door.
· After returning from the bathroom Peterson said “Sit down. I’m still your boss. I’m not through with you,” even though she was not being paid after 5PM and it was well after 5PM.
· At 6PM she was finally permitted to leave after Δ’s failed to convince her to resign

PROCEDURE:

The jury found that both Δ’s falsely imprisoned π and fixed her damages at $7,500.

ISSUE:

Is the jury’s verdict, finding that π was falsely imprisoned, supported by the evidence?

HOLDING:

The record contains sufficient evidence from which the jury could have concluded that π was intentionally confined, against her will, by an implied threat of actual physical restraint. The jury could properly find that Δ’s falsely imprisoned π by compelling her to remain in Peterson’s office against her will after 5PM.

REASONING:
· The essence of false imprisonment is the intentional, unlawful, and unconsented restraint by one person of the physical liberty of another
· Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 35: “False Imprisonment (1) An actor is subject to liability to another for false imprisonment if (a) he acts intending to confine the other or a third person within the boundaries fixed by the actor, and (b) his act directly or indirectly results in such a confinement of the other, and (c) the other is conscious of the confinement or is harmed by it.
· Sec. 39 and 40: the confinement may be caused by physical force or the threat of physical force and the threat may either be express, or inferred from the persons conduct
· Prosser: “Character of Δ Act – The restraint may be by means of physical barriers, or by threats of force which intimidate the π into compliance with orders…sufficient that he submits to an apprehension of force reasonably to be understood from the conduct of the Δ…gives rise to question of fact…and normally are for the jury.”

DISPOSITION:

Order affirmed; judgment modified with new trial ordered on the issue of damages unless, w/in twenty days of remittitur, π elects to accept judgment for $1,000 and as modified , affirmed.

DISSENT:

None