[T]here is no liability for intentionally confining another unless the person physically restrained knows of the confinement or is harmed by it.
Torts I, Page 45–46
Parvi v. City of Kingston
Court off Appeals of New York, 1977
Facts:
Two brothers were in a noisy quarrel in an alley behind a commercial building. Plaintiff was trying to calm them, but all three were drunk. Plaintiff told police he had no place to go, so plaintiff took them to an abandoned gold course to "dry out" instead of arresting them. Within an hour, plaintiff wandered onto the New York State Thruway and was struck by a car. Plaintiff has no memory of the night.
Procedural History:
Trial court dismissed the case and the Appellate Division affirmed.
Issue:
Was plaintiff falsely imprisoned even though he does not remember what happened?
Rule:
Page 46, Top
Reasoning:
Plaintiff was drunk and lost his memories, but that doesn't mean he did not understand what was happening to him at the time.
Holding:
Plaintiff could have been falsely imprisoned if the jury so decides. Reversed.
Dissenting Opinion:
Plaintiff has failed even to make out a prima facie case that he was conscious of his purported confinement, and that he failed to consent to it. His memory of the confinement, and that he failed to consent to it.