普通法-案例分析筆記-免費(fèi)閱讀
【正文】 s arm to stop her walking off when she was questioning her. The woman scratched the police woman and was charged with assaulting a police officer in the course of her duty.Me:the defendant refused to answer police woman’s question and walked away when police woman persisted to follow her and took hold of her arm to restrain her. The defendant swore at and scratched the officer’s arm, As a result, the D was arrested and charged with assaulting a police officer in the course of her duty.Issue: whether officer can physically hold suspect without arrest?(P3)Holding:officer’ action is unlawful and amounted to a battery since it went beyond the generally acceotable conduct of touching a person to engage his attention. The defendant39。 stay there till the boat should start , and then be taken by the boat to other side. after entry P changed mind and wish to go backwithout payment of prescribed fee , which was required by D P was prevented to leave and sued D for false imprisonment.Judgment: There was no false imprisonment.Reason224。 El. (.) 742, 115 Eng. Rep. 688 (1845).Case Summary為了演出而限制人流—原告強(qiáng)行進(jìn)去—不讓原告進(jìn)入，但允許原告撤退—不構(gòu)成非法拘禁Facts: part of Hammersmith Bridge, ordinarily used as a public footway, had been closed for spectators of a boat race. Bird (P) wanted to enter but he was prevented by Jones (D) and other policemen because he had not paid the admission fee. Defendants refused to let him go forward but would allow him to retrace his steps. P refused to leave and was in the enclosure for half hour. Bird sued Jones for false imprisonment.Issue: Can a party be liable for false imprisonment if he only partially restricts the movement of another such that a way out is available?Holding and Rule: No. P could have left but chose not to. D did not totally restrict his movements. D merely did not allow P to go where he wanted to go.Rule
環(huán)評(píng)公示相關(guān)推薦
鄂ICP備17016276號(hào)-1