(NOT SO) Ludicrous Litigation: Bird v Jones

Welcome to (not so) Ludicrous Litigation, in which we cover infamous legal cases and explain the rationale behind them! This month, we bring you the case of Bird v Jones, which concerns the tort of false imprisonment.

In this case, a boat race was to be held on the Thames, where the defendant, Jones, fenced off part of the bridge to provide a viewing point, charging admission. The claimant, Bird, was walking along the footpath of the bridge and insisted on his right to do so as usual. He climbed into the enclosure without paying. Due to this, Jones refused to let him cross the bridge. Bird sued Jones under the tort of false imprisonment, claiming that the temporary obstruction of the footpath amounted to an unlawful limitation on his freedom of movement.

On the facts of the case, the court found that Jones' restriction of access to the bridge constituted imprisonment. However, the imprisonment was not considered unlawful. This is because fencing off the footpath was done for the safety of others while the boat race was occurring. Additionally, the court found that Bird had alternative routes, which were not dangerous in any way, available to him. Hence, Jones was not liable, and the claimant failed to prove that false imprisonment had occurred.