Morales v. Lee
1984 Tex. App. LEXIS 5258, 668 S.W2d 867 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A threat of future action, such as a threat to call the police and have a person arrested, is not sufficient, by itself, to constitute willful detention for a claim of false imprisonment.
Facts:
- Linda Lee was a part-time medical assistant in Dr. Cesar Morales' office.
- On April 14, 1978, Dr. Morales called Lee into his private office, along with two other people.
- Dr. Morales accused Lee of stealing five dollars, which she denied.
- Dr. Morales became enraged, slammed a chart on his desk, and began screaming and cursing at Lee.
- Dr. Morales told Lee, 'don’t leave. If you leave, I’ll call the police and the police will be here in a minute.'
- Lee testified that she was scared and believed Dr. Morales might physically harm her.
- After a period of time, Dr. Morales told Lee to 'get the hell out of here,' at which point she left his private office.
Procedural Posture:
- Linda Lee (plaintiff) sued Dr. Cesar Morales (defendant) for false imprisonment in a trial court.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Lee, awarding her $10,000 in actual damages and $10,000 in exemplary damages.
- The trial court entered a judgment for $20,000.
- Following the judgment, the plaintiff filed a remittitur of $5,000 at the trial court's suggestion, reducing the total award to $15,000.
- The trial court then overruled the defendant's motion for a new trial.
- Dr. Morales (defendant-appellant) appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals of Texas (an intermediate appellate court).
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 an employer's threat to call the police if an employee leaves a room, when combined with yelling and screaming, constitute a willful detention sufficient to support a claim for false imprisonment?
Opinions:
Majority - Cadena, Chief Justice
No. A threat of future action, without more, does not constitute the willful detention required for false imprisonment. The court reasoned that false imprisonment requires a detention without legal justification. While threats can effect a detention, threats of future action, such as calling the police, are generally insufficient on their own. The court distinguished this case from others where threats were accompanied by additional coercive actions like extended interrogation or intimidation that created a present sense of confinement, which were absent here.
Dissenting - Tijerina, Justice
Yes. The threat, combined with the surrounding circumstances, was sufficient to constitute false imprisonment. The dissent argued that detention can be effected by words alone if they operate on the will of the individual to prevent free motion. The jury was entitled to consider all factors, including the employer-employee relationship, the doctor's angry and intimidating demeanor (screaming, slamming a chart), and Lee's fear. These factors, coupled with the threat to call police, were sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that Lee was unlawfully detained against her will.
Analysis:
This decision narrowly defines what constitutes 'detention' for false imprisonment claims based on verbal threats. It establishes a higher bar for plaintiffs, requiring them to show more than just a threat of future consequences. The court's holding emphasizes that the restraint must be present and operative, not contingent on a future event, thereby protecting defendants from liability for angry outbursts or threats that do not create an immediate and tangible sense of confinement.
