Is A liable for false imprisonment if he merely threatens B without blocking an exit?

The correct choice addresses a fundamental principle of false imprisonment: actual confinement. For a claim of false imprisonment to be valid, there must be an act that restricts a person’s freedom of movement. This is typically demonstrated through physical barriers, force, or other means that prevent a person from leaving a location.

While threats can create a psychological barrier, mere verbal threats without accompanying actions that physically block or confine someone do not meet the threshold for false imprisonment. The law requires some form of actual physical restraint or deprivation of liberty. Thus, if A only threatens B without blocking an exit or employing any physical means of confinement, A is not liable for false imprisonment.

This principle distinguishes verbal threats from actions that create a reasonable perception of being confined, as true imprisonment entails the inability to move freely due to the actions or control exerted by another party. The nature of B’s perceived compulsion to stay, or the psychological impact of the threat, does not alone constitute false imprisonment in the absence of physical containment or restriction.