A recovered a large sum of money from Railway Co for personal injuries Subsequently Railway Co came ...........

Legal Reasoning Others

False imprisonment occurs when a person (who doesn't have legal authority or justification) intentionally restrains another person's ability to move freely. This can also be called unlawful imprisonment in the first degree and is detailed in the penal code for your state.

All states have false imprisonment laws to protect against unlawful confinement. To prove a false imprisonment claim as a tort in a civil lawsuit, the following elements must be present:

There was a wilful detention;
The detention was without consent; and
The detention was unlawful.

False imprisonment can come in many forms; physical force is often used, but it isn't required. The restraint of a person may be imposed by physical barriers (such as being locked in a car) or by unreasonable duress (for example, holding someone's valuables, with the intent to coerce them to remain at a location).

To claim false imprisonment, you must reasonably believe that you were confined; a court will determine whether the belief is reasonable by determining what a reasonable person would do or believe under similar circumstances. Additionally, the actor must have the intent to commit the confinement without the privilege to do so. For instance, shopkeepers investigating shoplifting or civilians who have witnessed a felony have necessary privilege to meet legal standards.

Malicious prosecution is an abuse of the process of the court by wrongfully setting the law in motion on a criminal charge. In order to succeed the plaintiff must prove that there was a prosecution without any just and reasonable cause, initiated by malice and the case was decided in the plaintiff's favour. It is necessary to prove that damages were incurred by the plaintiff as a result of the prosecution. The burden of proof rests on him. He has to prove the existence of malice.
Malice may be proved by previously stained relations, unreasonable and improper conduct like advertising the charge or getting up false evidence.

1) The concept of joint liability comes under Section 34 of IPC which states that “when a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.” 2) A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor. 3) A criminal conspiracy takes place when two or more people get together and plan to commit a crime and then take some action toward carrying out that plan. The action taken does not have to be a crime itself to further the conspiracy.

A recovered a large sum of money from Railway Co. for personal injuries. Subsequently, Railway Co. came to know that injuries were not real and was created by doctor B. Railway Co, prosecuted B for playing fraud on the company, but B was acquitted. B sued Railway Co. for malicious prosecution. In the light of these facts which of the following statements is true? DECISION:

Railway Co. is guilty of malicious prosecution because it acted without reasonable cause

Railway Co. is not guilty of malicious prosecution because the Co. took reasonable care in determining the facts and honestly believed them to be true

Railway Co. is liable because it acted negligently

None of the above

Explanation:

Railway Co. is not guilty of malicious prosecution because the Co. took reasonable care in determining the facts and honestly believed them to be true. : In a suit for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove the following essentials:

1) That he was prosecuted by the defendant.

2) That the proceeding complained was terminated in favour of the present plaintiff.

3) That the prosecution was instituted against him without any just or reasonable cause.

4) That the prosecution was instituted with a malicious intention, that is, not with the mere intention of getting the law into effect, but with an intention, which was wrongful in fact.

5) That he suffered damage to his reputation or to the safety of person, or to security of his property