False Imprisonment — MCQs

All questions with answers and explanations

Read the full set here, or use the practice card above to test yourself one question at a time.

1. In Bird v. Jones (1845), the court held there was no false imprisonment because:

   • The claimant suffered no injury
   • A reasonable alternative route remained available, so the restraint was only partial, not total (correct answer)
   • The claimant consented to the restriction
   • The defendant had a court order

   Explanation. Since the claimant could still leave by another route, his liberty of movement was only partially, not totally, obstructed — no false imprisonment arose.

2. Must a claimant be aware of their confinement at the time it occurs for false imprisonment to be established?

   • Yes, awareness is essential to liability
   • No, knowledge of the confinement is not essential (Meering v. Grahame-White Aviation Co.), though lack of awareness may reduce damages (correct answer)
   • Only children need not be aware
   • Awareness is only relevant for slander

   Explanation. In Meering (1919) the claimant was held in the company's office without knowing it, and the Court of Appeal judges held that knowledge is not essential. The English view has been debated; awareness helps prove the tort, and its absence may reduce damages.

3. What degree of restraint on movement is required for false imprisonment?

   • Any minor inconvenience is sufficient
   • The restraint must be total, not partial (correct answer)
   • The restraint must last at least 24 hours
   • Only physical chains satisfy the requirement

   Explanation. The restraint on movement must be complete; a reasonable alternative way out defeats the claim, however inconvenient that alternative is.

4. Which of the following is a complete defence to false imprisonment?

   • The claimant's own carelessness
   • A lawful arrest by a person with proper legal authority, exercised within that authority (correct answer)
   • The confinement lasting less than an hour
   • The defendant's good intentions

   Explanation. Lawful arrest, properly exercised within legal authority, is a recognised complete defence to a false imprisonment claim.

5. In Herd v. Weardale Steel, Coal and Coke Co. (1915), a miner demanded to be taken up the shaft before his shift ended. The House of Lords held that the employer was:

   • Liable, because every refusal to give an exit is false imprisonment
   • Not liable, because the miner had agreed to the terms of the lift and refusing a better exit is not imprisonment (correct answer)
   • Liable, because the shift was not over
   • Not liable, because false imprisonment needs a long confinement

   Explanation. The miner had agreed to the terms on which he went down the mine. A refusal to give him a better exit is not an imprisonment.