Jensen v. Barnett
| Decision Date | 12 March 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 35844,35844 |
| Citation | 134 N.W.2d 53,178 Neb. 429 |
| Parties | James JENSEN, Appellee, v. Dodd BARNETT, Betty Jane Barnett, Tom Dutch, d/b/a Duchess Hotel, Appellants, Impleaded with Jake Ebert, Appellee. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. A private citizen who by affirmative direction, persuasion, or request procures an unlawful arrest and detention of another is liable for false imprisonment.
2. If an informer merely states to a peace officer his knowledge of a supposed offense and the officer makes the arrest entirely upon his own judgment and discretion, the informer is not liable.
3. If an informer knowingly gives to an officer false information which is a determining factor in his decision to make an arrest, the informer is liable.
4. The law does not prescrive a definite rule for the ascertainment of the exact amount recoverable for false imprisonment.
Donald H. Kelley, Merritt E. James, North Platte, for appellants.
McGinley, Lane, Mueller & Shanahan, Ogallala, for appellees.
Heard before WHITE, C. J., and CARTER, SPENCER, BOSLAUGH, BROWER, SMITH, and McCOWN, JJ.
A hotel guest was lodged behind bars. False arrest and imprisonment by the hotelkeepers and damages of $2,500 were conclusions of a jury.
Errors assigned and discussed by defendants relate to sufficiency of the evidence. In their view these propositions are correct: (1) The arrest was made by a chief of police in the exercise of his independent judgment and not upon the persuasion of defendants; and (2) the verdict is excessive.
The evidence describes an unusual occurrence. The guest, James Jensen, was a contractor engaged primarily by telephone and power companies to clear their rights-of-way. En route to a job he arrived at Ogallala, Nebraska, on December 11, 1962, with four employees and some equipment.
At 3:35 p. m. an employee registered for Jensen at the hotel, paid in advance the daily rate of $3, and received a room assignment.
Jensen spent 5 hours at the Hi-Way Inn. He drank five or six glasses of beer and tomato juice, or three bottles of beer, and felt no effects. He also ate lunch. About 11:30 p. m. he left the Hi-Way Inn and went to the hotel.
At the hotel desk he conversed with the clerk, Jake Ebert, with whom he had become acquainted during previous stopovers. Trouble began. A regular request for a room key provoked a vulgar reply. An ejection order was accompanied by unfair accusations--use of an assumed name and failure to be registered.
Glen Livingston, a retired rancher wintering at the hotel, was present during the first 10 minutes of the altercation. In his opinion Jensen, a stranger to him, was quiet and sober. Livingston walked behind the desk upon Ebert's invitation, located the registration card, and recommended delivery of the key. His service was acknowledged by an instruction to leave the desk. He left the scene.
At times Ebert was incoherent. Another sum of $3 was paid on his demand. The key remained undelivered. Registration was next demanded but refused. With Jensen's assent Ebert then telephoned the police.
One of two versions of the arrest was told by Jensen. Veldon Fuller, chief of police, entered the lobby and said to Ebert, 'Which one is it?' A gesture identified Jensen. Without comment Fuller than started to take hold of him. Jensen turned away but peaceably walked out to the police car.
The other version was told by Fuller. In answer to a call at 12:56 a. m. from the hotel, he entered the lobby. Ebert directed the removal of Jensen, who was standing quietly near a wall. At the trial Fuller did not remember whether Ebert had said, 'throw him in jail.' After Jensen refused to leave the hotel, Fuller informed him that he was under arrest for intoxication, a condition seen by Fuller and later by a radio operator at the station.
Jensen was taken to the police station and imprisoned. At 8 a. m. he was arraigned and released on bond. Later the charge against him was dismissed.
The problem is not so much the governing rules as it is their application. A private citizen who by affirmative direction, persuasion, or request procures an unlawful arrest and detention of another is liable for false imprisonment. However, if he merely states to a peace officer his knowledge of a supposed offense and the officer makes the arrest entirely upon his own judgment and discretion, the informer is not liable. See, Edgar v. Omaha Public Power Dist., 166 Neb. 452, 89 N.W.2d 238; Baker v. Coon, 102 Neb. 243, 166 N.W. 555; Van Dorn v. Kimball, 100 Neb. 590, 160 N.W. 593.
A corollary imposes liability upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rodriguez v. Ritchey
...(1949). See generally Annot., supra note 14, at 694-97; Restatement (Second) of Torts § 37, Comment b (1965). But see Jensen v. Barnett, 178 Neb. 429, 134 N.W.2d 53 (1965); Wehrman v. Liberty Petroleum Co.,, 382 S.W.2d 56 (Mo.App.1964).By engaging in this discussion of general tort law we d......
-
Braesch v. Union Ins. Co.
...as assault and battery, see Duncza v. Gottschalk, 218 Neb. 879, 359 N.W.2d 813 (1984), and false imprisonment, see Jensen v. Barnett, 178 Neb. 429, 134 N.W.2d 53 (1965). Indeed, this court has recognized recovery solely for mental distress arising out of negligent conduct even though there ......
-
Holmes v. Crossroads Joint Venture
..."`[t]he law does not prescribe a definite rule for the ascertainment of the exact amount recoverable. . . .'" Jensen v. Barnett, 178 Neb. 429, 433, 134 N.W.2d 53, 55 (1965). In Greenberg v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 150 Neb. 695, 35 N.W.2d 772 (1949), this court set out the importance of the......
-
Sabag v. Continental South Dakota
...336 N.W.2d at 653, quoting Johnson v. First National Bank & Trust Co., 207 Neb. 521, 300 N.W.2d 10 (1980) and Jensen v. Barnett, 178 Neb. 429, 134 N.W.2d 53 (1965). The evidence in this case does not establish the presence of malice nor the commencement of the criminal proceeding by Contine......