Newsom v. Thalhimer Bros., Inc.
901 S.W.2d 365, 1994 Tenn. App. LEXIS 748 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A threat of future action, such as calling the police to have someone arrested, is insufficient to establish the element of detention or restraint required for a claim of false imprisonment when unaccompanied by physical force or a threat of immediate force.
Facts:
- Charlotte Anne Newsom was employed as a salesperson at a Thalhimer Brothers Inc. department store.
- Thalhimer's security personnel, James McCoy and Sarah McIntyre, requested Newsom report to a store office for questioning regarding suspected theft.
- During an interrogation lasting over two hours, McCoy and McIntyre accused Newsom of stealing money and repeatedly stated that if she left the office, they would call the police and have her arrested.
- Newsom testified that she asked to leave but was told she could not, and she remained in the room because she feared being arrested.
- At no point during the interrogation did McCoy or McIntyre physically touch Newsom, use profanity, or threaten to use physical force against her.
- After Newsom wrote and signed a statement, she was informed of her termination and then permitted to leave the premises.
Procedural Posture:
- Charlotte Anne Newsom filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Shelby County against James McCoy, Sarah McIntyre, and Thalhimer Brothers Inc., alleging false imprisonment, extortion, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial in the circuit court, which is the trial court of first instance.
- At the conclusion of the plaintiff's presentation of evidence, the defendants moved for a directed verdict.
- The trial court judge granted the directed verdict, dismissing all of Newsom's claims.
- Newsom (appellant) appealed the trial court's decision to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, challenging only the directed verdict on the false imprisonment claim.
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 and have an employee arrested if the employee leaves an interrogation constitute detention or restraint for the purposes of a false imprisonment claim, when no physical force is used or threatened?
Opinions:
Majority - Tomlin, Presiding Judge
No. An employer's threat to call the police if an employee leaves an interrogation does not constitute the requisite detention for a false imprisonment claim. The tort of false imprisonment requires detention against one's will, which must be accomplished by force, the threat of immediate force, or an assertion of authority that creates a reasonable apprehension of force. The court reasoned that a threat of future action, such as calling the police, does not create the kind of immediate apprehension of force necessary for detention. Citing persuasive authority from other jurisdictions, the court concluded that a plaintiff's subjective feeling of being 'mentally restrained' or their fear of being fired or arrested in the future is insufficient. Since Newsom was not physically restrained and only submitted to threats of future legal process, her claim for false imprisonment fails as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'detention' element of false imprisonment, particularly within the employer-employee context. It establishes that moral pressure and threats of future legal consequences are distinct from the unlawful restraint required for the tort. The ruling provides employers a degree of protection when investigating employee misconduct, allowing them to threaten to involve law enforcement without it automatically constituting false imprisonment. Consequently, this precedent raises the bar for plaintiffs in similar cases, requiring them to demonstrate evidence of force, a threat of imminent harm, or a clear assertion of authority backed by an apparent ability to enforce it immediately.
