Does A's threat of violence in the room constitute false imprisonment against B?

The determination of whether A's threat of violence constitutes false imprisonment against B hinges on the concept of confinement. In tort law, false imprisonment occurs when an individual is confined or restrained against their will within a bounded area, without lawful justification.

In this scenario, it's critical to analyze whether A's threat actually resulted in B being confined. The mere threat of violence does not, in itself, create a physical barrier preventing someone from moving freely; B may still have the ability to leave the room despite A's threats. Thus, while A's threat may instill fear or mental anguish within B, it does not equate to actual physical confinement necessary to establish false imprisonment.

As a result, affirming that A has not confined B is the correct conclusion based on the criteria for false imprisonment. The threat may create an intimidating atmosphere, but it lacks the requisite physical restraint that constitutes confinement in terms of tort law.