Scofield v. Critical Air Medicine, Inc.
52 Cal. Rptr. 2d 915, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3708, 45 Cal. App. 4th 990 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
False imprisonment is the nonconsensual, intentional confinement of a person without lawful privilege, which can be effected by fraud or deceit, not only by force or threat of force. The victim does not need to be contemporaneously aware of the unlawful confinement, as long as they are harmed by it and become aware of it at some point.
Facts:
- Following a fatal vehicle accident in Mexico, Robert Scofield arranged for an air ambulance service, Air Evac, to transport his three injured minor children, Erin, Laura, and David, to the United States.
- A competing air transport service, Critical Air Medicine, Inc. (Critical Air), learned of the situation and, despite knowing Air Evac had been authorized, dispatched its own plane.
- The Critical Air pilot maneuvered his plane in front of the Air Evac plane to land first at the remote airstrip in Guerrero Negro, Mexico.
- The Critical Air crew used an unmarked plane and uniforms, did not identify their company, and implied to the children's caretakers that they were the authorized transport.
- Believing the Critical Air plane was the one their father had sent, Erin (age 11) and Laura (age 8) Scofield boarded the aircraft.
- Erin Scofield later testified that had she known the plane was not the one her father sent, she would not have boarded it.
- The children were flown by Critical Air to San Diego, discovering the deception only after they arrived.
- The children were not physically restrained or threatened with force at any time during the transport.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Scofield, as guardian ad litem for his minor children, filed a complaint in trial court against Critical Air and others.
- The complaint alleged causes of action for negligence, fraud, and false imprisonment, among others.
- At the close of trial, the court granted Critical Air's motion for nonsuit on the fraud claim, submitting only the negligence and false imprisonment claims to the jury.
- The jury returned a general verdict in favor of Erin and Laura Scofield on their false imprisonment claims, awarding each $60,000 in damages.
- Critical Air moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial.
- The trial court denied Critical Air's motions as they pertained to the awards for Erin and Laura.
- Critical Air (appellants) appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal, Second District; the Scofields are the respondents.
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 the nonconsensual, intentional confinement of a person, accomplished by fraud or deceit rather than force, constitute false imprisonment even if the victim is not contemporaneously aware of the unlawful nature of the confinement?
Opinions:
Majority - Klein, P. J.
Yes, the confinement constitutes false imprisonment. The tort of false imprisonment consists of the nonconsensual, intentional confinement of a person without lawful privilege. The court clarifies two key points: first, the confinement does not need to be accomplished by physical force or threat of force; it can be effected through fraud, deceit, or any other form of unreasonable duress, as supported by Penal Code § 237 and case law such as Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn. Because the Scofield children's consent to board the plane was procured by Critical Air's fraudulent misrepresentation of its authority, the consent was not valid, and the resulting confinement was nonconsensual. Second, the victim does not need contemporaneous awareness of the unlawful confinement. Following the reasoning of Prosser and the Restatement (Second) of Torts, the court holds that a victim can sustain substantial harm from a confinement even if they only learn of its unlawfulness later. Harm, including emotional distress, is the relevant factor, not the victim's state of mind at the moment of confinement.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies California's law on false imprisonment by confirming that the tort is not limited to traditional scenarios of physical force or threats. By establishing that confinement accomplished through fraud or deceit is actionable, the court expands protection to victims of trickery or misrepresentation. The holding that contemporaneous awareness is not an essential element is particularly important for protecting vulnerable individuals—such as children, the unconscious, or the incapacitated—who may suffer real harm without being immediately cognizant of the wrongfulness of their confinement. This case aligns California with a modern, broader understanding of the tort that focuses on the nonconsensual violation of liberty and the resulting harm, rather than on a narrow requirement of force.
