National Bond & Investment Co. v. Whithorn
1938 Ky. LEXIS 539, 276 Ky. 204, 123 S.W.2d 263 (1938)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Forcibly moving a person against their will constitutes false imprisonment, even if they are inside their own property which is also being moved, as it is an exercise of force that deprives them of liberty and compels them to go where they do not wish to go.
Facts:
- National Bond and Investment Company claimed to have a conditional sales contract on a car in William Whithorn's possession, on which payments were allegedly overdue.
- National Bond dispatched two employees, O’Brien and Baer, to repossess the vehicle.
- The employees located Whithorn driving the car, hailed him to stop, and demanded he surrender the vehicle.
- Whithorn refused to give up the car, demanding to see their authority. An argument ensued.
- During the confrontation, one of the employees disabled Whithorn's car by raising the hood and pulling out the distributor wire.
- The employees then called a wrecker, which hooked onto Whithorn's car while he remained inside protesting.
- The wrecker, directed by the employees, proceeded to tow the car down the street with Whithorn still inside, moving it approximately 75 to 100 feet.
- Whithorn managed to halt the procession by applying the emergency brake and putting the car in reverse, stalling the wrecker.
Procedural Posture:
- William Whithorn (appellee) brought an action for false imprisonment against National Bond and Investment Company (appellant) in the Jefferson circuit court, the trial court of first instance.
- A jury rendered a verdict in favor of Whithorn, awarding him $700 in compensatory damages and $900 in punitive damages.
- The trial court entered a judgment based on the jury's verdict.
- National Bond and Investment Company, as the appellant, prosecuted an appeal from that judgment to this 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 forcibly towing a person inside their car against their will, as part of a vehicle repossession, constitute false imprisonment even if the person was physically free to exit the vehicle?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Fulton
Yes, forcibly towing a person inside their car against their will constitutes false imprisonment. The essence of false imprisonment is any exercise of force that deprives a person of liberty or compels them to go where they do not wish to go. Although Whithorn could have physically departed the vehicle, doing so would have required him to abandon his property to a repossession that was not being conducted peaceably. Whithorn was in a place he had a legal right to be, and when the appellant's employees hooked a wrecker to his car and forcibly dragged him down the street, they imposed a restraint upon him and detained his person. This act of being compelled to move where he did not wish to go is sufficient to constitute false imprisonment, distinguishing it from cases involving mere verbal commands without a reasonable apprehension of force.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the element of 'restraint' required for a false imprisonment claim. The court's decision establishes that restraint does not require physical barriers like locked doors; being forcibly moved against one's will, even with an available exit, is sufficient. This holding reinforces the legal requirement that self-help repossessions must be conducted peaceably and cannot involve any force or restraint directed at a person. The ruling serves as a precedent limiting the methods creditors can use, protecting debtors from coercive tactics that blur the line between repossession and personal confinement.
