Original Creator: Jonathan Zittrain
Current Version: Samantha Bates
Should we recognize false imprisonment in situations where the confinement is arguably for the plaintiff’s own good? Should consent excuse the defendant’s liability for false imprisonment, even if it is feigned?
Plaintiff and his wife were members of a cult. Relatives of the plaintiff hired the defendant to abduct and deprogram the plaintiff. For five and one-half days, plaintiff was held at defendant’s deprogramming center. Security guards and handcuffs were used to forcibly restrain the plaintiff. Several days into his confinement, the plaintiff feigned consent to the deprogramming in hopes of gaining an opportunity to escape. The plaintiff finally escaped from defendant’s custody by jumping out of a car while being transported to another city for further deprogramming.