Court Opinion

ID: 9652596
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:27:26.134943+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:52.734736
License: Public Domain

Heher, J.
(dissenting in part). I concur in the reasoning and conclusion of the opinion, save as to the holding that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the submission to the jury of the “question whether there was an unlawful restraint of plaintiff’s liberty.” I find no tangible basis in the evidence for the conclusion that there was “constraint of person,” either by conduct or by words, such as would “induce a reasonable apprehension of force.” There was a discussion of the circumstances attending the transaction, welcomed by the plaintiff as an opportunity for self-defense. There was no arrest and no imprisonment. And there is no suggestion in what was done of an intention to impose confinement; quite the contrary. The course taken cannot reasonably be regarded as a “holding” of the plaintiff “incommunicado” in the sense of constraint of the person.
I would reverse the judgment in toto.
For affirmance in part and reversal in part — Justices Wacheneeld, Burling, Jacobs and Proctor — 1.
For reversal in toto — Justice Heher — 1.
Weintraub, C. J., concurring in result.