The Law School Authority

Parvi v. City of Kingston Case Brief

Summary of Parvi v. City of Kingston, Ct. App. N.Y. 1977

Facts: Police responded to a disturbance call found two brothers quarreling in an alley.  Plaintiff was with them trying to calm them down.  All three had been drinking.  Plaintiff stated he had no place to go, so the Police took him outside the city limits to an abandoned golf course to “dry out.” Whether he went willing is controverted.  Shortly thereafter he awoke, having no memory of the events, and was struck by a car and injured.

Issue: Does the confinement by the Police constitute false imprisonment when the plaintiff is unaware of his confinement?

Holding: Reversed

Procedure: Appellate Ct. decision to dismiss is overturned.

Rule: Restatement of Torts (Second) §42 : False imprisonment is not suffered unless its victim knows of the invasion/imprisonment.  That is there is no tort unless the person being intentionally confined knows of the confinement OR is harmed by.

Ct. Rationale: The time of confinement and the time of recollection are vastly different periods.  The plaintiff testified at trial that he knew he was being confined at that time of confinement, but did not remember because of alcohol afterward is significant.  He was responsive to police, as they testified, (requested that they take him somewhere else), was aware of the confinement, and he suffered a injury as a result of that confinement.

P. A. : Was aware of the confinement at the time of confinement, and suffered an injury from that confinement, albeit indirectly.

D. A. : Plaintiff never established he was conscious or objected to the confinement.

Sina qua non: Without which not.  An indispensable condition.

Copyright © 2001-2012 All rights reserved. Privacy Policy HotChalk Partner