If A keeps all entrances but one locked in a harmful manner to B, is he liable for false imprisonment?

In the context of false imprisonment, the correct answer rests on the nature of the escape route and the circumstances surrounding it. False imprisonment occurs when an individual is confined or restrained against their will without justification. In this scenario, A has kept all but one entrance locked in a harmful manner.

Option B correctly identifies that even if there is an escape route available, the harmful nature of that route can contribute to a claim of false imprisonment. If B cannot exit safely due to being subjected to harm—such as being threatened or facing physical danger upon leaving—this can still constitute a situation where B feels confined and restrained, as the exit is not genuinely available in an unrestricted manner. False imprisonment does not require complete physical barriers; instead, any circumstance that creates a substantial risk of harm upon attempting to leave can effectively amount to an unlawful restraint.

The other options do not adequately address the core issue of the harmful manner of escape as it relates to the nature of false imprisonment. While there may be discussions surrounding legitimate reasons or intentions behind A’s actions, those factors do not negate the primary issue of whether B experiences a restricted ability to leave due to potentially dangerous conditions. Consequently, the harmful aspect of the escape route is pivotal in establishing A’s liability for false imprisonment