Jack and his friends were dining at Daniel's Kentucky Home restaurant.Along with the meal,Jack had ordered several bottles of alcohol for his friends and him to share.When the clock struck midnight,Louella,the waitress who had served Jack's table,correctly informed Jack that she was required by law to remove a bottle of whisky that had been opened but not consumed.Jack initially protested,but eventually was persuaded by his friends to give up possession of the bottle.He became very angry,however,when Louella returned a few minutes later with the bottle (which she had recapped)and a bill that included a charge for the whisky in question.Jack angrily refused to pay for the disputed bottle.He stuck his business card onto the bottle with a piece of tape,paid for the rest of the meal,and began to leave.Before he could get out of the restaurant,however,Louella directed several other employees to lock the door.Jack and his friends were able to leave only after the police arrived about an hour later.Which of the following statements is TRUE?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

Louella is liable for the tort of false imprisonment. False imprisonment occurs when one person intentionally confines another person without that person's consent and without proper legal authority. Here, Louella directed several other employees to lock the door and prevent Jack and his friends from leaving the restaurant until the police arrived. This constituted a false imprisonment, for which Louella is liable. Jack's actions with the bottle may have constituted the tort of conversion, but this is not the best choice as it is not directly related to the false imprisonment. Louella was not entitled to detain Jack until he paid the entire bill, as this would also be false imprisonment. Louella did not commit the tort of assault, as there was no threat or actual physical contact. Malicious prosecution is not relevant to this scenario.

Jack and His Friends Were Dining at Daniel's Kentucky Home