Johnson v. Weiner
| Decision Date | 17 November 1944 |
| Citation | 19 So.2d 699,155 Fla. 169 |
| Parties | JOHNSON v. WEINER. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Hardee County; D. O. Rogers judge.
Leitner & Leitner, of Arcadia, for appellant.
W. W Whitehurst, of Wauchula, for appellee.
The appellant, who was plaintiff below, filed a declaration alleging that the defendant, a merchant operating a large mercantile business in Wauchula, Hardee County, sued out a warrant for the arrest of one Jack Johnson. The warrant was placed in the hands of the sheriff, and that shortly thereafter, while the plaintiff, his relatives and friends, were in said mercantile establishment, buying or attempting to buy merchandise, the defendant, in some manner, advised the Sheriff that the Jack Johnson for whom the said Sheriff had the said warrant, was then in defendant's store. That the Sheriff and one of his deputies immediately arrived upon the scene and the defendant pointed out this plaintiff to the sheriff and told the sheriff that plaintiff was the man for whom the sheriff had the warrant, whereupon the officers immediately in a boisterous manner arrested plaintiff and took him in custody and locked him up in the county jail, where plaintiff had to remain for something over thirty minutes before his wife procured his release on bond. That the defendant was acquainted with plaintiff, or should have been, as he had bought merchandise from plaintiff for a number of years; that plaintiff had not committed any crime and was not the said Jack Johnson, and that defendant maliciously, and wrongfully had plaintiff arrested and put in jail, for which he claims damages.
The defendant interposed a demurrer, among the grounds of which were the following: That defendant is not charged with participation in or causing the arrest of plaintiff except by making a mere erroneous identification of him. That the allegations of the declaration show no more than that the defendant pointed out the plaintiff and identified him as the person for whom the warrant had been issued, but does not show that the defendant participated in or directed the arrest of the plaintiff. And that the allegations do not show that the defendant had deceitfully and wantonly identified the plaintiff as the person for whom the warrant had been issued.
The Circuit Judge in his order, stated that the declaration did not charge that the defendant had wrongfully, wilfully, maliciously, or knowingly misrepresented that the plaintiff was in fact the person named in the warrant of arrest, and that for that reason the declaration did not state a cause of action. The demurrer to the declaration was sustained and the plaintiff declining to amend, judgment was entered in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff took this appeal.
Our view is that this declaration does state a cause of action for false imprisonment. The action for false imprisonment is usually distinguishable in terminology only from the action for false arrest. 22 Am.Jur. 352. The declaration in this case does not state a good cause of action for malicious prosecution, and it is quite possible that this was the form of action which the trial judge had in mind.
False imprisonment is the unlawful restraint of a person against his will, the gist of which action is the unlawful detention of the plaintiff and deprivation of his liberty. Fisher v Payne, 93 Fla. 1085, 113 So. 378. In the case of Kress & Co. v. Powell, 132 Fla. 471, 180 So. 757, 762, we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burch v. Apalachee Community Mental Health Services, Inc.
...negligently rather than intentionally. 7 Furthermore, Burch has a state law remedy for false imprisonment, see Johnson v. Weiner, 155 Fla. 169, 19 So.2d 699, 700 (1944) (person who has been "unlawful[ly] restrain[ed] against his will" has actionable claim for false imprisonment), which, unl......
-
Courson v. McMillian
...incident.12 Under Florida law, false arrest is distinguishable from false imprisonment in terminology only. See Johnson v. Weiner, 155 Fla. 169, 171, 19 So.2d 699, 700 (1944).13 The district court recited the standard used by the Florida Supreme Court to find intentional infliction of emoti......
-
Andrews v. Florida Parole Com'n
...against his will, the gist of which action is the unlawful detention of the plaintiff and deprivation of his liberty." Johnson, 155 Fla. at 171, 19 So.2d at 700. Because false imprisonment and false arrest are essentially the same tort, see Weissman v. K Mart Corp., 396 So.2d 1164, 1165 n. ......
-
Texas
...and request . . . release." § 394.459(10)(a). Finally, Florida recognizes the common-law tort of false imprisonment. Johnson v. Weiner, 155 Fla. 169, 19 So.2d 699 (1944). 16 Some Courts of Appeals have limited the application of Parratt and Hudson to deprivations of property. See n. 2, supr......
-
Physical torts
...participate in or proximately cause the false imprisonment and unlawful detention are liable, therefore. Source Johnson v. Weiner , 19 So.2d 699 (Fla. 1944). See Also 1. However, see defense of honest, good faith mistake discussed in Pokorny v. First Federal Savings & Loan Association , 382......