Then he’s the one who obstructs traffic so no, that’s a bad idea. And if he hasn’t touched the car, he can hardly be charged with ‘stealing’ it.
Alas, it seems he had no legal way to have the car removed – other than publicly embarrassing Car2Go. Their client abandoned their vehicle on the guy’s property. Car2Go failed to remove it when requested. They can get it back now on HIS terms, or cut a deal. Meanwhile they get much bad press. Boo hoo.
This is key. It seems like this is the top stunt is less about a payday than it is about public embarrassment for this company’s shitty actions here.
They failed to beat his arbitrary deadline. And he may have been demanding $500 at the time, too. That, AFIK, is not how the law works in Seattle. Smith is not licensed to impound cars.
This comment by “drinkup” in the Seattle Times comment section seems on point:
You can’t get a tow operator to tow from a private lot unless you post tow signs on the property and have an agreement with an RTTO licensed operator to impound vehicles that park there illegally. I don’t see any tow signs in the article, so the property owner has no legal way to remove the car because his employee didn’t set up an impound agreement with a tow company. Police won’t touch it, so he should give it back before he’s served with a replevin lawsuit and incurs liability on behalf of his boss. Courts hate this sort of whiny petulance, he will get hammered.
Two additional claims have been made by commenters: That he is only the property manager, not the owner. And that the car share was actually parked there by a tenant, because of the lack of on street parking.
If he is just the property manager he should be fired for tying up a tenant parking space for over two weeks as part of his feud, which, if the other claim is true, was caused by a tenant.
And while Dan Smith claims tow companies refused to tow (likely, given the lack of signs indicating a tow contract) tow agreements also require the authorizing agent/owner to indemnify the tow company. It would be rather unsurprising if Smith balked at indemnification.
When I lived in a condo in SF, the rule was that only the owner the space was deeded to could call for a tow, presumably to avoid putting the HOA on the hook for similar lawsuits.
He shouldn’t have to. I’m not saying he needs to. I’m saying, if it were me, I’d just do it. It’s far cheaper, less time, and less effort to take care of it that way. Seen from another angle – why should he have to buy fencing and stakes and erect a barrier around the car? Well… he shouldn’t have to. He doesn’t need to. That was entirely his choice to do so. But he doesn’t actually need to do anything. He’s annoyed that a car is parked in his driveway. I would be too! But the car isn’t blocking his driveway. It’s not preventing him from parking in his driveway. He could just leave it there until someone gets it.
If that’s the hill he wants to die on, that’s entirely his business. And I never said he was wrong. My entire point is, if he’s really concerned about “the hassle” of dealing with the car, he’s sure put a lot of effort and frustration and money into this situation (for more than I would)… and the car is still in his driveway. He could have solved the hassle in five minutes with a cheap rental fee, and been done with it. He’s angry and he’s making a public statement, showing how wrong the company is and how he’s a victim and he’s going to try and stick it to man. Okay.
I would have moved the car and been done with it. Other than leaving it there until someone gets it, it’s the cheapest, easiest, fastest solution to the problem.
ETA: If I were feeling especially passive-aggressive, I’d put a boot on the car. I might take my time finding the key to un-boot it. Or I might claim that I had no idea who put a boot on the car.
Option A rewards bad behavior. Option B makes a statement. Like I said before, it’s a principled stand and these can often seen ridiculous (like the person spending hundreds of dollars in legal fees suing over a one penny discrepancy in a bill). Rationalism isn’t the point here.
Then you assume any liability from that. With the “fence” (to put it charitably) it’s making an effective statement without ever touching the vehicle.
He owns the building. The Car is parked in one of his tenant’s spaces.
It depends on whether you’re a driver who parks wherever you please, or a property owner (ETA: warning: rabbit hole) whose property is open 24/7, needs to have parking spaces open for customers at any time day or night, and is frequently a target for people to park there anyway so they can go barhopping. These people tend to get towed.
I was really hoping that link would be to gtoger’s channel.
drumroll plays as car is towed in seconds
I think this illustrates a big difference between Germany (where I use Car2Go) and this particular neighbourhood in the USA, as Car2Go (now ShareNow) has made it pretty clear that as the driver, it’s your responsibility for any tickets incurred during your rent, and that you as a driver agree to leave the car in a proper, legal location within the city’s Home Zone when you’re done. They even have spelled out explicitly that if they do have to retrieve the vehicle, then you as the person who left it there will be charged for it.
So really, if this happened here, then the property owner could have had the car removed after informing the police, Car2Go would be billed and then Car2Go would recoup the fee from the credit card of the guy who last rented the car.
Knowing German love of leaving no corner case uncovered, I am sure they also have explicit laws about the fence building stunt, but since I haven’t come into contact with that yet, I cannot say.
Generally not theft because the intent to permanently deprive is missing but it can certainly be some form of trespass to goods.
Not saying what he is doing is right or wrong but he CLAIMS he called 3 tow trucks, you don’t really know he did unless you were with him of course.
The same way you are his words, you believe them but people lie ALL the time. Unless you were with him you have no idea if he called 3 tow companies because there is no proof. I could say I am the tooth fairy and based on your logic I am YAY.
Not saying what he did was right or wrong but I am not just gonna take his words as fact.
Sage policy.
Welcome to Boing Boing, comrade.
ETA:
Der Paragraph 859 Absatz 3 des BGB garantiert dem Besitzer eines Grundstückes Selbsthilfe , wenn ihm ein Teil des Grundstückes widerrechtlich entzogen wurde. Er darf sich seinem Besitz „durch Entsetzung des Täters wieder bemächtigen“, was konkret heißt, dass er das fremde Fahrzeug von seinem Privatparkplatz abschleppen lassen darf . Auch hier übertrug der BGH das allgemeine Gesetz mit dem Urteil V ZR 144/08 explizit auf Privatparkplätze. Doch alle Mittel dürfen Sie dabei nicht einsetzen. Versuchen Sie, den Falschparker am Wegfahren zu hindern, damit er Ihnen eine Entschädigung zahlt, begehen Sie eine strafbare Nötigung.
I tried to look it up, and am in danger of loosing myself in legalese definitions and other foreign languages.
Interestingly, the references given here do feature cases where property owners towed / kept stuff parked on their property.
The difference between Besitz und Eigentum, with Eigentum given protection and obligations by the Grundgesetz, is making this especially interesting. And yes, I also assume this has already been regulated by law and went through court multiple times.
I don’t believe you.
Major Premise: People lie all the time.
Minor Premise: @KathyPartdeux is a person.
Conclusion: @KathyPartdeux lies all the time. 
Principle!
Keeping lawyers’ kids in good schools since before recorded history.
