Berberian v. Smith, 10601
| Decision Date | 28 January 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 10601,10601 |
| Citation | 99 R.I. 198,206 A.2d 531 |
| Parties | Aram K. BERBERIAN v. John A. SMITH. Ex. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Aram K. Berberian, Providence, for plaintiff.
John A. O'Neill, Harvey J. Ryan, Pawtucket, for defendant.
This is an action of trespass in two counts, one for assault and battery and the other for false imprisonment. The plaintiff was nonsuited as to the first count and went to trial on the merits of the count for false imprisonment before a justice of the superior court sitting without a jury. At the conclusion of the evidence the trial justice delivered his decision from the bench for the defendant for costs. The plaintiff has brought the case here by his bill of exceptions, consisting of an exception to an evidentiary ruling and another to the decision.
To the declaration defendant pleaded the general issue and a second amended special plea in justification of his conduct toward plaintiff as alleged in the second count of the declaration. The plaintiff filed a replication in which he joined issue. The second count reads as follows: 'The defendant on 20 November, 1958 at approximately 10:00 p. m., in the City of Pawtucket, Rhode Island, vi et armis, imprisoned him and detained him in a prison there without any reasonable or probable cause, whatsoever, for the space of approximately one half hour the next following, contrary to the laws of this State and against the will of the plaintiff.'
It appears from the evidence that on November 20, 1958, at about 10:30 p. m., plaintiff drove his automobile over the Pawtucket River bridge, a section of a new freeway recently completed but not then formally open to the public. Sawhorses had been placed at the northern and southern termini of the bridge to prevent access thereto. However, plaintiff was able to enter from the north by passing around the sawhorse at that terminus and to proceed southerly until he reached the sawhorse at the southern end of the bridge. It was necessary for him to move the sawhorse there, which he did.
After he had passed through he got out of his car to replace the sawhorse, and as he was doing so defendant, a police officer, accompanied by another officer drove up in a police car and inquired of plaintiff what he was doing on the bridge. The plaintiff said he had just driven across it. Thereupon, some conversation took place about the reasons for his presence on the bridge which are not in portant to the resolution of the ultimate issue in the case. The upshot of such conversation was that plaintiff refused to follow certain suggestions of defendant, whereupon defendant called for the police patrol wagon and indicated that plaintiff was to be taken to the police station. At this juncture plaintiff attempted to drive away, but he was prevented from so doing by defendant placing the police car in front of his car. The plaintiff then locked the doors and rolled up the window of his car which prevented defendant from taking him into the patrol wagon.
While plaintiff was in that situation, surrounded by defendant and the other police officers, Deputy Chief Hourigan happened to pass by and inquired what the commotion was about, whereupon plaintiff got out of his car and told the chief that defendant wanted to take him to the police station in the wagon and that he did not want to go. According to plaintiff the chief replied, 'Well, you'd better go, like the rest of them.' Deciding that 'it was useless' to resist he went in the wagon and was followed to the station by defendant in the police car. After plaintiff had been in the station about forty-five minutes, during which time he talked to the police lieutenant on duty there, he was allowed to leave without any charges being preferred against him.
On such facts, which are undisputed, the issue here is whether defendant was guilty of a false arrest of plaintiff resulting in false imprisonment. After a lengthy review of the evidence the trial justice concluded that plaintiff did not submit to arrest by defendant but to Officers McConaghy and Delphia, who were standing by when Deputy Chief Hourigan told plaintiff he had better go to the police station. The trial justice said that defendant at this time was a mere observer and therefore did not as a matter of law effect the arrest, although he had every intention of doing so, but was prevented by the actions of plaintiff.
In our opinion this conclusion is predicated upon a misconception of false arrest based on what appears to be an overrefinement of the evidence tending to absolve defendant of the obvious consequences of his own action from the time he first stopped plaintiff until he attempted to get him into the police wagon. When plaintiff would not voluntarily go defendant's own testimony indicates that it was he who took the necessary measures to prevent him from leaving the scene.
He called for the patrol wagon and when it arrived it was stopped directly behind plaintiff's car. He explained to the officer in charge that, He admitted that he had called for the wagon for the purpose of taking plaint...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lim v. Andrukiewicz
...529, 7 L.Ed.2d 521; Ahern v. Lynch, 99 R.I. 316, 207 A.2d 296 (1965); Barth v. Flad, 99 R.I. 446, 208 A.2d 533 (1965); Berberian v. Smith, 99 R.I. 198, 206 A.2d 531 (1965); and State v. Giragosian, 107 R.I. 657, 270 A.2d 921 Plaintiffs merely refer to Kavanagh, supra, which upheld the const......
-
Dempsey v. McQueeney
...a crime. See State v. Ramsdell, 109 R.I. 320, 285 A.2d 399 (1971); Ahern v. Lynch, 99 R.I. 316, 207 A.2d 296 (1965); Berberian v. Smith, 99 R.I. 198, 206 A.2d 537 (1965); Kavanagh v. Stenhouse, 93 R.I. 252, 174 A.2d 560 (1961), appeal dis'd, 368 U.S. 516, 82 S.Ct. 529, 7 L.Ed.2d 521. Cf. Li......
-
Berberian v. Mitchell, 73-54-A
...that plaintiff submitted rather than resisted, so long as he was fearful that force would be used unless he did so. Berberian v. Smith, 99 R.I. 198, 206 A.2d 531 (1965); State v. Dufour, 99 R.I. 120, 127, 206 A.2d 82, 86 (1965). And he obviously had reason for his fear, because when he subs......