Also known as: reasonable means of escapes · adequate escape route
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A method or route allowing a confined person to leave the area of confinement without unreasonable risk, embarrassment, or harm. Knowledge of such a route renders the confinement incomplete for false imprisonment purposes even if the route is physically available.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Rina Rahman is escorted by curator Robert Rivera into a restoration studio at a private museum. Rivera closes the visible main door and states that Rahman cannot leave until security reviews footage. An unlocked rear door blends into the wall paneling and remains unknown to Rahman. Rahman later sues Rivera for false imprisonment. The confinement is complete because Rahman lacks knowledge of the reasonable means of escape.
Raphael Rivera is escorted by security officer Rhea Reynolds to an interior cabin on a cruise ship after an altercation. Reynolds closes the door and stands guard outside. A bathroom window opens onto a narrow maintenance walkway unknown to Rivera. Rivera remains inside until released and later sues the cruise line. The confinement is complete because Rivera does not know of any reasonable means of escape.
The existence of a physically available exit fails to defeat the claim when the confined person lacks knowledge of it. Confinement remains complete under the governing rule even though a reasonable means of escape exists unless the plaintiff knows of that route.
Supporting sources
The plaintiff must know of a reasonable means of escape that can be used without undue risk, embarrassment, or harm. Actual knowledge is required. Constructive notice or assumptions by the confining party do not suffice.
Supporting sources
A hidden or camouflaged exit does not count as a reasonable means of escape when the plaintiff remains unaware of it. The rule treats confinement as complete despite the physical availability of such a route.
Supporting sources
A plaintiff's physical limitation can render an otherwise passable exit unreasonable when the plaintiff cannot use it without leaving a wheelchair or facing undue risk. The assessment of reasonableness occurs from the standpoint of the particular plaintiff.
Supporting sources
A plaintiff's subjective belief must align with actual lack of knowledge of a usable exit. The rule requires that the plaintiff does not know of the route. Mere fear or assumption without that lack of knowledge does not automatically complete the confinement.
Supporting sources