In which scenario is A not liable for false imprisonment?

In the context of false imprisonment, liability arises when a person is intentionally confined or restrained against their will without legal justification. When evaluating the scenarios, the situation where A is not liable for false imprisonment occurs when B can reasonably escape the room.

The rationale is that false imprisonment requires not only the act of confinement but also that the individual is unable to leave the confined area without substantial difficulty. If B has a reasonable means to escape—such as an unlocked door or an open window—then B cannot be considered imprisoned in a legal sense. The ability to leave freely negates the element of unlawful restraint necessary for establishing a claim of false imprisonment.

In comparison, situations where A locks B in a closed room, holds B against a wall, or where B submits to A's authority do involve some form of confinement or restraint that likely constitutes false imprisonment, as B is not free to exercise their freedom of movement.