Davis v. Allcott Co. v. Boozer
Davis v. Allcott Co. v. Boozer
Davis v. Allcott Co. v. Boozer
Imprisonment
Supreme Court of Alabama 168k5 k. Act or Means of Arrest or
DAVIS & ALLCOTT CO. Detention. Most Cited Cases
v. That mill doors were locked so employee could not
BOOZER. leave without foreman's consent did not constitute
7 Div. 662 arrest.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Etowah County; O.A. 168 False Imprisonment
Steele, Judge. 168I Civil Liability
168I(B) Actions
Action by Rosa Boozer, suing by her next friend, 168k37 Trial
Carrah Boozer, against the Davis & Allcott 168k39 k. Questions for Jury. Most
Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant Cited Cases
appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals, under Evidence held not to warrant submission to jury of
Code 1923, § 7326. Reversed and remanded. false imprisonment by refusal of permission to sick
employee to leave work.
West Headnotes *29 Hood & Murphree, of Gadsden, for appellant.
[1] False Imprisonment 168 20(3) E.O. McCord & Son, of Gadsden, for appellee.
[2] False Imprisonment 168 2 Concerning the occurrences forming the foundation
of this suit, plaintiff, Rosa Boozer, testified: She
168 False Imprisonment was just kind of taken sick and went to Whittle and
168I Civil Liability asked him to let her go home, who said that she
168I(A) Acts Constituting False couldn't, to go to work. She told him that she did
Imprisonment and Liability Therefor not feel like working, and he said: “Go and take
168k1 Nature and Elements of False some medicine, and maybe it will help you.” A
Imprisonment Miss Alredge was forelady at the plant, and
168k2 k. In General. Most Cited plaintiff testified that she gave her some medicine,
Cases as directed by Whittle. Plaintiff did not know what
Arrest consists in taking, under real or assumed the medicine was, but it appears, without conflict,
authority, custody of another for purpose of that it was bicarbonate of soda. Plaintiff returned to
holding or detaining him to answer criminal charge her machine for a short while, then went to the
or civil demand. toilet and there fainted. She was revived, carried
into the office, where she waited until Richardson
drove her home in the automobile. Plaintiff was of
[3] False Imprisonment 168 5 delicate health, had been sick at the plant before,
“had been sick off and on.”
168 False Imprisonment
168I Civil Liability Plaintiff thereafter by next friend brought this suit
168I(A) Acts Constituting False
to recover of appellant damages as for an unlawful
Imprisonment and Liability Therefor arrest and imprisonment of plaintiff, as alleged in
168k1 Nature and Elements of False
“In order to constitute an arrest, as distinguished *30 As we read and understand count 6, one of the
from a mere false imprisonment, there must be real essential elements rests upon the theory that the
or assumed authority to take the person into entrance to the plant, where plaintiff was
custody. There must be an intention to effect an employed, was locked, thereby preventing her from
arrest, and, where the submission of the subject of leaving the plant without Whittle's consent.
arrest is involved, he must understand that he is Plaintiff testified that the door by which she entered
under arrest.” the plant that evening was locked from the inside,
but it is without dispute in the evidence there were
See, also, 2 R.C.L. 445; Emery v. Chesley, 18 N.H. three entrances to the plant, one of which was
198; Lawrence v. Buaxton, 102 N.C. 129, 8 S.E. through the office, and there is no proof by plaintiff
774; note to Bissell v. Gold, 19 Am.Dec. 480. that the office door was locked, while, on the
contrary, the evidence is without conflict that this
door was not locked. This was testified to by
[3] Plaintiff's theory appears to be that the doors of defendant's superintendent, Richardson, and the
the plant were locked, that therefore she could not plant foreman, Whittle, as well also by plaintiff's
leave without Whittle's consent and assistance, and sister, Rita Griffin (witness for the plaintiff) who
his refusal was tantamount to an unlawful stated in this connection:
detention. But, so conceding for the purpose of this
case, that would not constitute an arrest, within the
meaning of the law as above defined. That there “If the employees wanted to go out, as at dinner
may be an unlawful imprisonment without an arrest time, they had a door to go through, which was the
was recognized by this court in Robinson v. office door. That door was not kept locked during
Greene, 148 Ala. 434, 43 So. 797. In that case, the the day or while the employees were at work-the
evidence tended to show plaintiff was unlawfully door that went through by the office.”
110 So. 28 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 3
215 Ala. 116, 110 So. 28, 49 A.L.R. 1307
(Cite as: 215 Ala. 116, 110 So. 28)
Ala. 1926.
Davis & Allcott Co. v. Boozer
215 Ala. 116, 110 So. 28, 49 A.L.R. 1307
END OF DOCUMENT