sundevil77 wrote:Alright, I want to see if someone can help me understand this distinction. I just finished MPQ2 Set 7. You might recall Problem 30, which gives a fact pattern about a mom being called down to the vice principal's office because her son is in trouble. A janitor ends up impersonating the vice principal and bringing the mom into the office. The janitor makes suggestive comments to the mom while impersonating the vice principal, but the mom doesn't leave because of her concern for her son's academic standing. The correct answer is (D), the mom won't prevail because she had no reason to believe she could not leave.
Now I remember another question awhile back where a man had his luggage illegally detained and searched at the airport. The answer there ended up being that it was false imprisonment because the man didn't reasonably believe he could leave. The explanation was something about how a reasonable person would feel constrained to wait for the luggage. How is that different than this situation? The mom didn't feel like she could leave the VP's office because of her son's academic standing. I think the average person might feel like they had to stay there to resolve the problem.
With the airport, the guy had all his possessions and belongings in his suitcase. I don't remember if he was on vacation, or on a business trip or something, but it was imperative that he stay, due to the threat of losing his things. I believe that Q involves some comment that, if he didn't stay, he risked losing his bag for a long time. He needed the bag and its contents, so he was essentially forced to stay.
With the principal's office, what is even slightly compelling her to stay in the office? She could absolutely go into the hall or into the waiting room again to get away from the creepy janitor. Its not like they said "you can't leave the office, or else your son gets suspended".