Bird v.

Jones
115 Eng. Rep. 688 (K.B. 1845)

Facts: Plaintiff desired to make his way down a public street in order to watch a boat race, for
which customers had paid for their seats. Bird (plaintiff) desired to enter this portion of the
highway and was prevented by police officers at the direction of Jones. Bird was not physically
restrained in any way and was free to move in any other direction besides along the highway.
Bird brought suit against Jones on the ground that he suffered false imprisonment.
Rule: False imprisonment is the intentional restraint of a person in a bounded area without
justification or consent.
Holding: Jones is not liable for the false imprisonment of Bird, as Bird was merely restricted in
his movement in a particular direction.
Reasoning: False imprisonment is the intentional restraint of a person in a bounded area without
justification or consent. It is not a mere restriction on movement, but rather requires something
like personal menace or force accompanying the restriction. Jones did not intentionally use force
to confine Bird in a particular area. He was free at all times to move in any other direction
besides along the highway. This partial restriction on Bird’s movement does not amount to the
complete restriction necessary for liability for false imprisonment. Jones is not liable to Bird for
damages for false imprisonment.
Dissent (Lord Denman, C.J.): False imprisonment should necessarily encompass any restraint
of a person by force. It does not matter that Bird was at all times permitted to move in a different
direction. He was prevented from doing something that he had a legal right to do, and thus
suffered imprisonment. Jones’ conduct was outrageous, and Bird rightfully resisted it as an
outrageous violation of his liberty.