Hardy v. LaBelle's Distributing Co.
661 P.2d 35 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
False imprisonment requires an unlawful restraint against the plaintiff's will. A person is not restrained against their will if they voluntarily consent to remain in a location to clarify a situation, even if their presence was initially procured by a pretense.
Facts:
- LaBelle’s Distributing Company (LaBelle's) hired Debra Jo Hardy as a temporary sales clerk in its jewelry department.
- Another employee, Jackie Renner, reported to a manager that she believed she saw Hardy steal a watch.
- The next day, an assistant manager asked Hardy to come to the showroom manager's office under the pretense of a 'tour of the store.'
- In the office, Hardy was met by managers and at least one uniformed police officer and was accused of stealing a watch.
- Hardy denied the accusation and voluntarily agreed to take a lie detector test to prove her innocence.
- Hardy later testified that while she felt compelled to stay, she also wanted to stay to clarify the situation.
- Hardy never asked to leave the office, was never told she could not leave, and no threats were made to compel her to stay.
- A lie detector test supported Hardy's statement that she had not taken the watch, and a manager subsequently apologized to her.
Procedural Posture:
- Debra Jo Hardy filed a lawsuit against LaBelle's Distributing Company for false imprisonment in the District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, Yellowstone County, a state trial court.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, LaBelle's.
- The trial court entered a judgment in accordance with the jury's verdict.
- The plaintiff, Debra Jo Hardy, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Montana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does false imprisonment occur when an employee, after being accused of theft, voluntarily remains in a manager's office to clarify the situation, without being told they cannot leave or being threatened with force?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Gulbrandson
No. False imprisonment does not occur when an individual is not unlawfully restrained against their will. The court found ample evidence to support the jury's finding that Hardy's detainment was not against her will. Although she was brought to the office under a pretense, Hardy admitted that she wanted to stay and clarify the situation. She did not ask to leave, she was not told she could not leave, and no threats were made to compel her to stay. Critically, Hardy testified that she would have gone to the meeting voluntarily even if she had known its true purpose. Given these circumstances, her presence was not against her will, which is a key element of false imprisonment.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the 'against the will' element of false imprisonment, particularly within an employer-employee context. The decision establishes that an individual's subjective feeling of being compelled to remain is insufficient if their objective actions and testimony indicate a voluntary choice to stay, such as to 'clarify the situation.' It suggests that consent can negate a false imprisonment claim even if that consent is procured under a minor pretense, so long as the person willingly participates after the true purpose is revealed. This provides a degree of legal protection for employers conducting internal theft investigations, provided they do not use threats, force, or overt commands to prevent an employee from leaving.
Unlock the full brief for Hardy v. LaBelle's Distributing Co.