It is a common problem. Towing companies complying with “hold” orders can find themselves between a rock and a hard place. A vehicle owner or his insurance company might be willing to promptly pay the bill to retrieve a vehicle that has been placed on hold, but, pursuant to the hold order, the towing company refuses to release the vehicle.
Any towing company owner that performs law enforcement towing is familiar with the term “owner’s request,” or OR. In the event of a vehicle accident or breakdown, before the investigating officer dispatched a tow truck, the owner or driver of the vehicle who is on the scene is usually given the option of indicating his or her preference for a towing company. An OR overrides the normal rotation list or contractual agreement the police agency has made for towing service.
Has the tow industry “stolen billions of dollars” from the transportation industry? Has the tow industry killed carriers and other small businesses with big bills? Are lawyers who represent these tow companies “accomplices to crimes?” That is what a new anti-towing group called the “Abusive Tow Authority” (the “ATA”) claims.
A TowLawyer.com subscriber recently informed me that one of his tow truck driver-employees had taken a trip to the beach with his adult daughter and her family. After he had been back to work for a few days, the driver found out that his daughter had been diagnosed with COVID-19. The driver felt fine and was not displaying any symptoms of the coronavirus. The TL subscriber asked, “What should I do? What can I legally do? Do I have to send him home? Can I require him to be tested for COVID-19 infection?” Those are important questions in these trying times.
Court Rules That Property Owner, Not Towing Company, Liable For $6,000+ In Attorney’s Fees In Wrongful Towing Case
Generally, under what is known as the “American Rule,” all parties to litigation are responsible for paying their own attorney’s fees. But a state legislature can, by statute, require the losing party to a lawsuit to pay the winning party’s legal costs in some circumstances. That is referred to as a “fee-shifting” statute. Under Illinois law, the loser in an unlawful towing case may be required to pay the vehicle owner’s attorney’s fees. In Roberto Lopez v. Rendered Services, Inc., an Illinois appellate court had to decide who the loser is in a successful wrongful towing case.
Is a tow company an “essential business” and do I have to pay my employees if they don’t report to work? A few weeks ago, these questions were not on anyone’s radar. Now, with the COVID-19 pandemic, the answers to these questions are vital.
On June 29, 2016, a Shelby County (Tenn.) jury rejected Proffitt’s claim of self-defense and convicted him of attempted second degree murder. Proffitt was sentenced to fourteen (14) years in prison. He appealed the judgment to the Tennessee Criminal Court of Appeals. In a written opinion issued on December 13, 2018, the appellate court in State of Tennessee v. Joseph Proffitt upheld the jury’s verdict. Former tow truck driver Arnold remains paralyzed and is confined to a wheelchair. Proffitt currently resides at the Trousdale Turner Correctional Center in middle Tennessee. He has a parole hearing scheduled in July 2020.
Murel Laughlin, owner of Laughlin Wrecker Service, in Greeneville, Tennessee, passed away in January 2014. But he left behind an important court ruling about assessing the value of used tow trucks.
Every automobile loan agreement contains a provision allowing for self-help repossession in the event of default. If the borrower does not make the scheduled loan payments on time, a repossession agent is sent to pick up the vehicle. The uniform code on secured transactions provides that a repossession must be accomplished “without breach of the peace.”
When adopting a policy around political discussion, tow companies should distinguish between what an employee can do off the clock versus on the clock. Importantly, an ideal policy should include language that will allow an employer to maintain control over the workplace. Therefore, employers should advise employees that any workplace disruptions, including disruptive political discussions, may be subject to discipline.