# great new article by Gfactor about ad flyers. **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [September 22, 2007, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-new-article-by-gfactor-about-ad-flyers/420055 "2007-09-22T00:04:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2007, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-new-article-by-gfactor-about-ad-flyers/420055/21 "2007-10-03T02:49:21Z")
[QUOTE=Randy Seltzer] This has inspired me to do some digging, and I’m having a rough time coming up with a double-parking case where the tort was ‘trespass to chattels,’ and the chattel wasn’t harmed. Odd, since my torts professor claims that you needn’t show harm to your chattel if you can prove that you were deprived of it for a significant amount of time. (depending, of course, on the jurisdiction) [/QUOTE] What makes this hypothetical atypical of a trespass to chattels case is that in this case, there is no dispossession in the property–it hasn’t been taken away or inactivated in some way (compare the case where the captor takes the water from the radiator). I get that it’s been applied to servers and there are some other special cases, but I don’t think that most lawyers were thinking trespass to chattels. The parts I removed from the case talk about the applicability of a municipal ordinance that banned double parking. So if Mr. Harnick was a trial lawyer (I don’t know if he was) or knew some he’d be looking at it like a negligence per se case. To me, it looks like the most relevant caselaw is on trespass to easmentL _e.g. [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=228246&invol=o01](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=228246&invol=o01)_, (injunction, not damages, where no actual damages proven). ---
**Author:** ![Randy\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ee7513/32.png) [@Randy\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Randy_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2007, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-new-article-by-gfactor-about-ad-flyers/420055/22 "2007-10-03T03:21:52Z")
[QUOTE=Gfactor] What makes this hypothetical atypical of a trespass to chattels case is that in this case, there is no dispossession in the property–it hasn’t been taken away or inactivated in some way (compare the case where the captor takes the water from the radiator). I get that it’s been applied to servers and there are some other special cases, but I don’t think that most lawyers were thinking trespass to chattels. [/quote] Right, that’s why I chose it: I wanted to explore just how far “trespass to chattels” goes. The Restatement says it can be invoked any time the owner is deprived of his stuff for a substantial time. But it seems that you are absolutely correct in that it’s rarely applied in this way, in a strict sense. ---
**Author:** ![garygnu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garygnu/32/2924_2.png) [@garygnu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/garygnu)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2007, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-new-article-by-gfactor-about-ad-flyers/420055/23 "2007-10-04T16:51:00Z")
How would all this work with a Home-Owners’ Association and common areas? (I’m more interested in how it relates to direct solicitation rather than flyers, but I would appreciate both answers.) ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2007, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-new-article-by-gfactor-about-ad-flyers/420055/24 "2007-10-04T17:48:36Z")
[QUOTE=garygnu] How would all this work with a Home-Owners’ Association and common areas? (I’m more interested in how it relates to direct solicitation rather than flyers, but I would appreciate both answers.) [/QUOTE] Private restrictions are probably ok. [First Amendment Coalition Defends Free Speech & Free Press](http://www.cfac.org/AGOpinions/opinion_97_1005.html) (even under California’s more generous \*Pruneyard \* standard, condominiums, apartment buildings, and mobile home parks may prohibit uninvited, nonresident political candidates from distributing their campaign materials door-to-door). _And see_, _Golden Gateway Ctr. v. Golden Gateway Tenants Ass’n_, 26 Cal. 4th 1013; 29 P.3d 797; 111 Cal. Rptr. 2d 336; 2001 Cal. LEXIS 5598 (2001) (apartment complex could prevent tenant’s association from distributing unsolicited newsletters): [http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/cal4th/26/1013.html](http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/cal4th/26/1013.html) ---
**Author:** ![lawoot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/35a633/32.png) [@lawoot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawoot)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2007, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-new-article-by-gfactor-about-ad-flyers/420055/25 "2007-10-06T06:02:56Z")
I have a “No Soliciting” sign on my door (I’m a night worker), and yet I still have people coming to my door. If I happen to be awake (and dressed) when they knock, I’ll open the door, point to the sign, and slam the door in their face. I had one guy who tried to argue with me, as he wasn’t ‘selling’ anything, he was just ‘taking a survey’ about siding. I’m guessing that he was an advance man for a siding company. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-new-article-by-gfactor-about-ad-flyers/420055.md?page=1)