Court Opinion

ID: 9764295
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:18:27.829583+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:55.639336
License: Public Domain

TIJERINA, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Civil false imprisonment has been defined as the direct restraint by one person of the physical liberty of another without adequate legal justification. The essential elements of false imprisonment are: (1) a willful detention of the person, (2) a detention without authority of law and (3) a detention against the consent of the party detained. J.C. Penny Co. v. Duran, 479 S.W.2d 374, 379 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1972, writ ref'd n.r. e.). “An unlawful detention occurs when there is used any means that restrains another from moving from one place to another, and an actual arrest, assault, or incarceration is not necessary. A wrongful detention may be effected by acts alone or by words alone, or by both operating together, if the effect thereof is to operate on the will of the individual so as to prevent his free motion.” 25 TEX.JUR.2d False Imprisonment § 18 (1961); See Harris & Co. v. Caldwell, 276 S.W. 298, 299 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1925, err. dism’d). (Emphasis added.)
The majority is correct in saying that a threat to call the police, standing alone, is not sufficient to conclude that the complainant was unlawfully detained. But, the jury, as the fact finder, heard, observed and weighed all the other factors such as the age, sex, relative size of the parties, demeanor of the witnesses, employer-employee relationship, and susceptibility of the complainant to intimidation. Appellee testified that appellant was mad, that he slammed the chart down on the desk, was hollering and cussing and that she was scared. Consequently, there was an unlawful detention when these facts are coupled with appellant’s státement “If you leave, I’ll call the police.” The length of the detention is irrelevant and not in issue since appellee was detained from her freedom of movement. It is settled that the imprisonment need not be for more than an appreciable length of time and that it is not necessary that any damage result from it other than the confinement itself, since the tort is complete with even a brief restraint of the plaintiff’s freedom. PROSSER, *870TORTS § 11 at 43 (4th ed. 1971). Thus, in the instant case, the jury could have found or reasonably inferred that the angry outburst of hollering and threats by appellant was calculated to operate upon the mind of appellee and inspire fear of injury to her person. The jury could have also considered the other factors in determining that the threat was sufficient to intimidate and prevent appellant from her freedom of movement. The determination of the basic fact questions concerning intimidation and detention of appellant was based upon the appearance and demeanor of the witnesses and the weight and credibility to be given their testimony. The jury apparently rejected the testimony of appellant and his witnesses and found that appellant had willfully detained the appellee without justification. We should not substitute our judgment for that of the jury. See Blount v. Earhart, 657 S.W.2d 898, 902 (Tex.App.—Tyler 1983, no writ); Szmalec v. Madro, 650 S.W.2d 514, 517 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Martin v. Warren & Miller Co., 639 S.W.2d 706, 709 (Tex.App.—Tyler 1982, no writ).
I,therefore would affirm, holding that the record evidence is factually and legally sufficient to support the jury’s findings and judgment.