wrong ”. Restraint must be complete. The tort is not committed unless Plaintiff is restrained in every direction. A partial obstruction of the freedom to go whither one pleases does not constitute imprisonment. The available means of escape must be reasonable plaintiff must not be exposed to the risk of injury of person or property or serious inconvenience. In Bird V. Jones (1845) 7 QB 742 the Defendants wrongfully enclosed part of the public footway on Hammersmith Bridge. They placed seats on the footway for the use of spectators of a regatta on the enclosure. The plaintiff insisted on passing along this part of the footpath, and climbed over the fence of the enclosure without paying the charge. The Defendants refused to let him to forward, but he was told that he could go back into the carriageway and cross to the other side of the bridge if he wished. He declined to do so and remained in the enclosure for half an hour. The Defendants here were held not to have committed the Tort of False Imprisonment of Plaintiff. The restraint on the Plaintiff here was not total. He had an option of using another route which he refused. If on the other hand, the plaintiff had suffered damage, for instance missed an important appointment or incurred some cost for fare, as a result of closure of the normal route, an action might have lain. Read Also: Balman New Ferry Co. C. Robertson (1906) 4 CLR 379, 387. The action for False Imprisonment protects the interest in freedom from physical restraint and coercion against the wrong of intentionally and without lawful justification subjecting another to a total restraint of movement by either
