38. Does the lawyer have a viable claim for false imprisonment against the clerk?

B is correct. Intent to confine the claimant (or to commit some other intentional tort) is essential to establishing liability for false imprisonment. There is no evidence that the clerk had such an intent.

A is incorrect. The fact that it was unusual for anyone to be using the library at the time the clerk locked the door might lead a fact finder to conclude that the clerk was not negligent in failing to detect the lawyer. However, because false imprisonment is an intentional tort, the reasonableness of the clerk's conduct is irrelevant. If the clerk had intended to lock the lawyer in the library, the lawyer would have a claim for false imprisonment even if it was unusual for anyone to be using the library at the time. Under these facts, however, the clerk did not intend to lock the lawyer in the library, so the lawyer does not have a viable claim for false imprisonment.

C is incorrect. Whether a reasonable person in the clerk's position would have checked before locking the door is irrelevant to a claim for false imprisonment. False imprisonment is an intentional tort requiring intent to confine the claimant (or to commit some other intentional tort). What a reasonable person would have done is relevant to a negligence claim, but not to a false imprisonment claim.

D is incorrect. In cases involving false imprisonment, courts often hold that the plaintiff must have been aware of the confinement at the time of the imprisonment or else must have sustained actual harm. It is also essential, however, that the defendant have had an intent to confine the plaintiff (or to commit some other intentional tort). If the clerk had had such an intent, the lawyer's awareness that she was confined might have completed the prima facie case, but the clerk had no such intent.