Lexplug logoLexplug

Whittaker v. Sandford

Maine Supreme Court
85 A. 399 (1912)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

False imprisonment occurs when a person is confined without legal justification, and physical force is not required; restraint can be accomplished by creating a physical barrier, such as withholding the only available means of egress from a location.


Facts:

  • Plaintiff Whittaker was a member of a religious sect led by Defendant Sanford.
  • In 1905, Whittaker traveled on one of the sect's yachts to Jaffa, Syria.
  • After deciding to leave the movement in 1909, Whittaker was persuaded by Sanford to return to America on his yacht, the 'Kingdom.'
  • Sanford explicitly promised Whittaker that she would be free to leave the yacht as soon as they reached port.
  • The yacht arrived in Maine in May 1910 and anchored offshore.
  • For approximately one month, Sanford repeatedly refused Whittaker's requests for a boat to take her to shore, which was the only practical means of leaving the yacht.
  • Whittaker's husband, a minister in the sect, was also on board and deferred to Sanford's authority, refusing to help his wife leave without Sanford's permission.

Procedural Posture:

  • Plaintiff Whittaker filed a suit for false imprisonment against Defendant Sanford in a Maine trial court.
  • A jury found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded her a verdict of $1100.
  • The defendant appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, filing exceptions to the trial court's rulings and a motion for a new trial.

Locked

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 refusing to provide a person with the only available means of leaving a vessel, thereby preventing them from going ashore, constitute false imprisonment?


Opinions:

Majority - Savage, J.

Yes, refusing to provide the only available means of leaving a vessel constitutes false imprisonment. The court reasoned that physical force upon the person is not a necessary element of this tort. A physical restraint can be achieved by creating a barrier to escape. In this case, the impassable sea served as the walls of a prison, and the defendant's refusal to provide a boat was analogous to turning the key in a locked door. By controlling the only means of egress and wrongfully refusing its use in violation of his promise, the defendant created a physical barrier that effectively and unlawfully imprisoned the plaintiff.



Analysis:

This decision is significant for broadening the definition of physical restraint in the context of false imprisonment. It establishes that confinement does not require traditional barriers like locked doors or walls, nor does it require the application of physical force. The ruling clarifies that exercising control over a person's sole means of escape, thereby using a natural barrier like water to enforce confinement, is sufficient to constitute the tort. This precedent affects future cases by allowing courts to find false imprisonment in situations involving psychological coercion or the wrongful withholding of necessary tools for freedom, especially where a duty to provide them exists.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Whittaker v. Sandford (1912)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"