Herbst v. Wuennenberg
266 N.W.2d 391 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a claim of false imprisonment by threat of physical force to succeed, the plaintiff's confinement must result from submission to an apprehension of force reasonably understood from the defendant's conduct. A plaintiff's untested and unfounded assumption that they would need to use force to leave is insufficient to establish the element of confinement.
Facts:
- On September 19, 1974, Jason Herbst, Ronald Nadel, and Robert Ritholz (the 'plaintiffs') entered the vestibule of an apartment building owned by Carol Wuennenberg to check voter registration lists against names on mailboxes.
- Wuennenberg confronted the plaintiffs in the vestibule and, after a brief exchange, they refused to identify themselves to her.
- Wuennenberg initially told them to leave but then changed her mind and asked them to stay and identify themselves to the police.
- The plaintiffs, through their spokesman Ritholz, agreed they would be willing to wait for and identify themselves to the police.
- Wuennenberg's husband was asked to call the police.
- While waiting for the police to arrive, Wuennenberg positioned herself in front of the outer doorway.
- The plaintiffs made no attempt to leave, nor did they ask Wuennenberg to move from the doorway.
- The plaintiffs later stated they did not attempt to leave because they assumed they would have had to push Wuennenberg out of the way.
Procedural Posture:
- Jason Herbst, Ronald Nadel, and Robert Ritholz sued Carol Wuennenberg in a Wisconsin trial court for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process.
- At the close of a jury trial, the trial court granted a directed verdict for Wuennenberg on the malicious prosecution and abuse of process claims.
- The trial court denied Wuennenberg's motion for a directed verdict on the false imprisonment claim, allowing it to go to the jury.
- The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs on the false imprisonment claim, awarding a total of $1,500 in actual damages.
- A judgment was entered on the jury's verdict in the trial court.
- Wuennenberg, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
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 a person's act of standing in a doorway, without making verbal threats or physical contact, constitute false imprisonment by threat of force when the alleged prisoners agreed to wait for the police and never attempted to leave or asked the person to move?
Opinions:
Majority - Abrahamson, J.
No. A person's act of standing in a doorway does not constitute false imprisonment by threat of force where the plaintiffs consented to remain and their belief of confinement was based on an untested assumption rather than submission to an apprehension of force. The essence of false imprisonment is an unconsented restraint, which is negated when an individual agrees to remain in a location. The tort requires that confinement be brought about by an actual threat of force, not merely the plaintiff's subjective and unfounded belief that force would be used. The plaintiffs here voluntarily agreed to wait for the police and never tested their assumption that Wuennenberg was blocking their exit. Unlike in prior cases, there were no verbal threats, intimidation, or circumstances creating a reasonable fear of harm. Because the plaintiffs did not submit to an apprehension of force, they were not imprisoned.
Analysis:
This decision refines the 'confinement' element of false imprisonment, particularly in cases involving implied threats of force. The court sets a higher bar for plaintiffs by clarifying that their subjective assumption of restraint is insufficient; there must be objective evidence that they submitted to a reasonable apprehension of force. This precedent makes it more difficult to establish false imprisonment in ambiguous situations where no physical force or explicit threats are used. It underscores that a plaintiff cannot claim confinement if they consented to remain or failed to take minimal steps, such as asking the defendant to move, to ascertain if their freedom was actually restrained.
Unlock the full brief for Herbst v. Wuennenberg