Comments by "Auntie M" (@auntiem873) on "FOX 13 Seattle" channel.

  1. 33
  2. 12
  3. 7
  4. 6
  5. 5
  6. 5
  7. 3
  8. 3
  9.  @BreakinUpBuds  - sorry the response has taken too long. I was not notified you had responded to me. Anyway. Look at it this way. Your breaks go out and your car winds up jumping the curb and landing in someone’s living room. No one is hurt. You leave the car to make a phone call, insurance, call a tow truck. Call the police. You went to the sidewalk, stayed there making all your calls. It takes 30 minutes to make the calls. You go back to the house, your car. Only you find out the home owner has chained the car to the fireplace, a stair bannister. Your reasoning is, the car is the home owners now and they can do what they want???? They do not give you time to make arrangements to get the car removed. The car should have just been backed out, left the home? Sorry but in many places, the law says you cannot remove the vehicle till police show up or you have been given permission to remove the car if it does not cause more damage. In this case, the guy hit the tree head on, there is a good chance he cracked his radiator, engine block and maybe the frame. It is not safe to move the vehicle if it can move at all. The owner made arrangements to have the car picked up only to find that it can’t because the Tow company finds the car chained to the tree. There are a lot of areas where a tow truck cannot come out till the next day. That’s doesn’t mean he has to stay with the car. It would have been nice if he left a note on the home owners door (if it was late at night when it happened), but he doesn’t have to. He left a note on the car itself saying he will take care of it. He did. The home owner wants people to be more responsible and not speed there. Good luck with that, he cannot control the public. The home owner cannot keep something that is not his even if it is on his property. By law. Now if the car was there for 30 days after the accident that’s another story. After 30 days it can be considered abandoned. Then the home owner can lay claim to the vehicle but he still has to file the paperwork first.
    3
  10. 3
  11. 2
  12. 2
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25.  @brianm6117  - if he moved the car off his property and the car got damaged he would be responsible. He moved the car into harms way. That’s what I’m saying. If he leaves the car there on his property and it gets damaged then different story. If not for the land owners actions the car was damaged. If he had left it alone, on his property, it was in a safe spot. In a parking spot just on his property. If it got damaged or stolen from there he holds no liability cause reasonable care was taken - it was in a parking spot. That’s all he has to do. It’s the taking it from that spot, him not being the owner that is the problem. Just as in a mechanic shop. The car was secured and if not for the owners actions moving it to the street, allowing it to get damaged, the person who was in last possession of it was held liable. If the car had been stolen from his lot cause someone broke in and took it, a different law applies but the law where “if not for his actions” the car would got damaged would apply here. Now if nothing happens to the car then all is good but, if something should happen then the person who moved it would be liable. And a different law applies if the man moved it, nothing happened to the car for 30 days but on the 31st day something does. Then too bad. After 30 days the car could be seen as abandoned and then the old owner is out of luck. Why happens to an abandoned thing happens. You may not like this, there may be exceptions to it but that is something that the lawyer has to argue about in court - an exception to the law.
    1
  26. 1
  27.  @Taydooba  - that’s is not what I’m saying. This isn’t any parking spot. The car is in a small parking lot. There is a good chance one of the tenants from the building parked it there. The man/owner tried to do the right thing and let the owner know where their car was. In doing so, he assumed responsibility to do sue diligence in care. In other words have it towed by a legit tow company. Unfortunately a legit one will not touch it. Had he just had it removed from the spot he would have been fine. It’s the letter that is the problem. Seattle has a pesky law that says a car cannot be towed from a business, lot or the street without a ticket. The cops refuse to issue one. All because he did not have tow signs up to warn a person that unauthorized parking in his lot would result in towing. Welcome to the world of doing business. Had it been a parked in a private residence, his personal driveway, no one else allowed, there wouldn’t have been a problem. This however is not that. It is a business as such other laws apply. Businesses have to have signs posted about towing. Private residence does not. Have you ever been to a store that didn’t have signs up? This includes apartments. This is why. What people fail to understand though is the letter and the lack of action to retrieve the vehicle now works in the man’s favor. 30 days after the owners were notified, if they do not remove the vehicle, the man can contact the state to have the title changed into his name. The car can be considered abandoned. The city then sends a letter as well and if no action is taken by the end of that 30 days they will issue a new clean title to the man. He gets a car for free or for the cost of filing. If the company responses, they are told they have 3 days to remove it or lose it. If they do not then again the man gets a new car. So after 60 days that car can belong to him and if the old owners then come to take it he can have them arrested for cat theft. That means he can sell it, tow it, scrap it, give it away if he wants, it’s his car. So you see, the letter is important. It shows he did his part, the ride share did not.
    1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1