Bird v Jones [1845] 7 QB 742
Bird v. Jones [1845] 7 QB 742, which is important in tort law, particularly under the topic of false imprisonment:
📚 Case: Bird v. Jones [1845] 7 QB 742
🧑⚖️ Court:
Queen’s Bench Division (England)
⚖️ Area of Law:
Tort Law – False Imprisonment
📌 Facts of the Case:
The defendant, Jones, had fenced off part of a public footpath on Hammersmith Bridge to allow paying spectators to view a boat race.
Bird, a member of the public, attempted to walk across the bridge using the public footpath.
Jones and his agents prevented Bird from passing through the enclosed area, but Bird was free to go back the way he came.
Bird sued for false imprisonment, claiming his liberty was unlawfully restrained.
🧑⚖️ Issue:
Was Bird falsely imprisoned when he was prevented from walking forward, even though he could retreat or go another way?
🏛️ Held (Decision):
No false imprisonment occurred.
📖 Legal Principle:
False imprisonment requires a total restraint on a person’s freedom of movement — not merely a partial obstruction.
Since Bird was not completely confined (he could walk back the way he came), there was no total restraint, and therefore no false imprisonment.
Partial obstruction of a path or direction does not amount to false imprisonment.
📝 Significance:
The case clarifies the elements of false imprisonment, particularly:
There must be total restraint on a person's liberty.
If a person has a reasonable means of escape, the claim will fail.
🔍 Famous Quote from the Judgment (Coleridge J.):
“A man is not imprisoned who has liberty to go in any direction by a path or passage not substantially less commodious to him.”
✅ Summary Table:
| Element | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Bird v. Jones [1845] |
| Legal Area | Tort Law – False Imprisonment |
| Key Issue | Was partial obstruction false imprisonment? |
| Decision | ❌ No false imprisonment |
| Legal Principle | Must be total restraint of liberty |
Do write to us if you need any further assistance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments