Torts .5
Tumblr tells me this blog turned 1 yesterday. I was busy, but I thought I'd commemorate the occasion by calling out this guy:
Sean Larson.
You can read about him at the Bro Bible.
The salient part, for this blog's purpose, is when one of his victims tells the reporter:
He grabbed my wrist, kissed my hand, and proceeded to babble off some of his "pick-up-lines". I was taken aback, so I didn't immediately pull away. But as soon as he tried to stroke me hair (he was using the line, "Wow, you have such pretty hair!..."), I was immediately made uncomfortable. I insisted that I had to go somewhere, but he wouldn't let go. I kept insisting that I was in a hurry. He then began asking for my number and in response, I repeatedly told him I had a boyfriend. That fact did not phase him and he kept pushing and pushing. He wouldn't let go even when I started to physically walk away. Throughout this encounter after each time I declined to give him my number, he was getting visibly more agitated. I finally was able to twist my wrist free and sped away quickly. I was shaken and immediately called my boyfriend. During this whole ordeal, I remember thinking, why is NO ONE coming to help me.
She should talk to one of OSU's Michael E. Moritz College of Law's students. Why? Because this is a classic example of the intentional tort "False Imprisonment", one of the first torts 1Ls learn. And it's very bar testable. Look for it at bar/bri girls and boys.
Anyways, false imprisonment, as my professors and bar instructors were so keen to tell me, has three elements:
Intent
Act or omission that confines
To bounded area
One of the things that makes this particular tort so testable is that the "bounded area" doesn't have to have to be a locked room. Heck, it doesn't even have to have walls. A famous bar problem had a victim held at gun point in an open parking lot. The important point is that you don't feel safe to leave.
So let's do the analysis: first we need intent. Intent is "desire the result or have knowledge to a substantial certainty that that the result will occur."
Mr. Larson has her grabbed her wrist. (btw, we also have battery, for those keeping score at home.) He desires the result that she can't leave.
Next we have to have an act or omission that confines. Again, he grabbed her wrist, that's an act.
Lastly, we have bounded area. Again, we don't need a tiny room, cornering a person and grabbing their wrist in a way that makes it difficult to leave the area? That's a bounded area under the law. It's gets better (for the tort, the not our victim) when he's trying to corner her in small spaces.
While I'm at it, a case could probably be made for assault and intentional infection of emotional distress. IIED isn't an argument I'd make to a court though. Especially since battery's a slam dunk.
I don't know about Ohio, I'm not licensed to practice there, just as a reminder, but in California, an intentional tort means that a person can get punitive damages in addition to general damages.
Why bring this up? Well, the law you learn as a 1L and for the bar isn't necessarily the law in any particular state like Ohio. However, battery and false imprisonment are fairly universial. It would be unusual if Ohio didn't have these torts some form.
Maybe a small claims lawsuit would be fruitful. Grabbing people's wrists and stroking their hair is illegal, and there's no reason why someone should have to wait for police to do something. You're not going to get rich suing creeps, but enough of these lawsuits might dissuade him from continuing to do these things. Right now, he's getting away with it. All that's really happened is a change of venue.
