Hey outoftheorg:
In his situation, no because there isn't any clear indication that the person who parked somewhat or even totally in the driveway INTENDED to "confine" him. (In your situation, I think you may have had a claim because YOU TOLD her not to park there that it was in the way and she deliberately and with intention parked there.)
As for the line scenario, remember this is an "intentional tort" so since you did not intend to block the person's path with the intention of depriving them of their mobility there is no tort. Additionally, in many social situations, there is some leeway for what can be expected! A person can't allow themselves to get strapped into a rollercoaster and cry confinement afterwards, a person can't complain about "battery" when the crowded bus stops suddenly and the guy next to her bumps her.
The basic elements for the tort are:
1. Intent of the Defendant to deprive the person of mobility
2. Actual confinement, no matter how slight or how "strong"
3. Knowledge by the Plaintiff that he/she was so confined
4. The confinement was unlawful
That is all that is required for the Tort itself but the question of damages is always an issue. Even if one has been wronged if there is no harm from the wrong (i.e. usually monetary damages or physical harm) then the Courts say "no harm, no foul"
I know it is hard to fathom but the fact that there are alternative routes, escape or that they are a black belt and could blow right through you or superman who could break the chains that hold them are all non-issues.
You have to think of it as the person wants to go "that-a-way" (whether out the door, or down the sidewalk or street) and you step in their way. You do not have to physically touch them (that is battery) they don't have to be afraid (that is assault) you just have to deprive them of the direction that they wanted to go to be guilty of committing the tort of false imprisonment.
-Eduardo
