Answered You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
Hi, need to submit a 500 words essay on the topic Studying a.The paper discusses Trune’s accusation with a view of illustrating the dissenting opinion that there was no false imprisonment.The accusa
Hi, need to submit a 500 words essay on the topic Studying a.
The paper discusses Trune’s accusation with a view of illustrating the dissenting opinion that there was no false imprisonment.
The accusations of Trune that the farmer intended to confine him within fixed boundaries do not sufficiently prove the crime of false imprisonment because the farmer did not lock him in the firm house. Because the farmer did not lock the farm house, it can thus be argued that there was no false imprisonment because Trune’s freedom was not limited at all. This case can be compared with the Herbst v. Wuennenberg case in which the plaintiffs were asked by the accused to leave before the occurrence of the events which led to the legal suit. This illustrates that in the Herbst v. Wuennenberg case, the freedoms of the plaintiffs was not violated. The case led to a ruling of the appeal court that favored Wuennenberg because sufficient evidence suggested that there was no false imprisonment of the plaintiff (Supreme Court of Wisconsin 1).
The actions of the farmer were motivated by the need to protect his farm from intruders and trespassers and there was no intention of leading to the confinement of the plaintiff otherwise he would have locked him in the firm yard. In the Herbst v. Wuennenberg case, the plaintiffs admitted that they were not intimidated neither threatened by the accused (Supreme Court of Wisconsin 2). On a counter argument, Trune admits that he stayed in the firm house because he feared the possible outcome of the farmer’s actions, which does not adequately substantiate the claims that his life was in immediate danger. The actions of the farmer were inn ordinary sense harmless and the plaintiff has no real evidence to prove that the farmer put him in unbearable danger.
Trune’s arguments however differ with the Herbst v. Wuennenberg case on the trespass issue is compared between the two cases. Like in the case of Herbst and the other plaintiffs, Trune does not defend his reason for being on the farmer’s field.
