Once upon a time there was a parking lot attendant. He watched a person getting out of his car and could have said, "You're not allowed to park in that particular spot." But the attendant stayed silent. For he was not an employee of the owner of the parking lot, but rather of the towing company, whose financial interest was in towing cars that were illegally parked.

The parking lot owner's interests would have been served better by an immediate oral notice to the driver, since the car would have been removed faster.

I happen to know of a case where a criminal charge of trespassing was dismissed because an employee of the company on whose property the defendant was said to have trespassed watched him for some time without ever telling him to leave.

Might something similar apply to the situation described here, if the car's owner sued the towing company, saying the attendant's silence implied consent?

  • 2
    Consent to what? The silent person does not work for the parking company, so is not in a position to grant or withhold consent for parking in a given spot on the parking company's property.
    – phoog
    Jun 6 '16 at 5:22
  • @phoog : I suspect he could reasonably withhold consent. Jun 6 '16 at 16:01
  • 4
    He can't withhold it unless he has the power to grant it. And his silence cannot imply consent he has no power to grant. He's engaged to enforce the garage's rules, but he can't make or change the rules any more than a police officer could consent to someone entering a third party's private property.
    – phoog
    Jun 6 '16 at 18:36
  • Was there any signage or any other indication that the person wasn't allowed to park in that spot? Jul 11 '16 at 12:55

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.