Top Law Schools

A, the ex-boyfriend of B's current girlfriend, meets B in the school locker-room. The locker-room is without any windows and has only one way out, which A proceeds to block such that B cannot exit the locker room. A, however, is a small guy at 100 lbs, while B is an athlete weighing 350 lbs, able to crush A in a single blow. Has A falsely imprisoned B?

A acted with the intention of confining B within a fixed space. However, is there confinement here? To get out from the room, B would have to commit an intentional tort, most likely battery or assault, which would be defensible under "self-defense" as long as he uses minimal amount of nondeadly force required to achieve his result. Otherwise, B would have to simply sit and wait in the locker room, which goes against common sense, as a little shove by B to A would let B out. But this also carries the risk of exacerbating the situation causing a bigger fight and because the purpose of tort law is to minimize such occasions, suggesting B to simply sit tight. If B chooses to sit tight, we can consider situation confinement and therefore false imprisonment. However, if B chooses to commit a defensible intentional tort to get out, it is not confinement and therefore not false imprisonment.


This is what I have, but I'm having trouble with this question. I feel like I'm deriving whether it's confinement or not based on other factors, whereas it "should" be a standard on its own, independent of other factors. Can anyone help?