Wilhelm has an argument with his apartment roommate, arthur. wilhelm tells arthur that if he leaves their apartment, wilhelm will lock arthur in his room when he returns. arthur, frustrated with wilhelm, leaves the apartment to take a walk. if arthur were to sue wilhelm for false imprisonment, arthur would most likely:
a. be successful because wilhelm committed false imprisonment.
b. not be successful because threats of future harm do not constitute false imprisonment.
c. not be successful because wilhelm is his roommate.
d. be successful because arthur suffered emotional distress.

b. Not be successful because threats of future harm do not constitute false imprisonment.

Explanation:

Law works according to legal interpretation and definitions, so we need to look at the definition of false imprisonment and see if it applies:

According to US Law, false imprisonment is understood as the action when a person intentionally restricts another individual's freedom of movement within an area without the legal authority to do so, legal justification or that person's or any courts consent. Physical restraint is not necessary to constitute false imprisonment.

Yet, a false imprisonment act could occur from private action, or from wrongful governmental detention.

In this case, the act has not happen, is a threat from Wilhelm to Arthur, with no actual imprisonment or locking taking place, if Arthur were to sue Wilhelm claiming false imprisonment as a reason, since the actual act in just a possibility, or just words, then the suing would fail.

what's this it's not giving you what have to do.

the answer is tom watson. tom watson created this epitaph because he wanted to increase the sympathy felt by people towards the murder of mary phagan.