Apparently, it wasn't a problem until he left it unattended to go grab something a few aisles (or was it lanes, if you're in a checkout lane and leaving something blocking it to go get "just one more thing that you forgot" - then you can take your **** with you and go to the back of the line) away. Never leave your bike unlocked and unattended and it won't go missing on you (usually). Problem solved. No stress, no yelling, nothing.

I guess you were just trying to provide some legitimacy for "a guy with a chicken on his head."

Write him a thank you note for saving your arteries and your life... :) j/k

My work looked at me squarely one day for bringing my bike into work, I work for the govt. , while they were in the middle of a "going green" push and reducing waste. I said I was doing my part and reducing emissions and wasting fossil fuels. I also told them since they do not provide a bike rack, I am bringing my bike in my cubicle.

They said...oh..ok....I am just waiting for a dress code violation for the shorts...lol

I guess looked at one way, "knock wood" the times that I have had to call the police, they were legitimate calls.

Agreed.

Agreed, and as I said it would be better/smarter for the store to announce over it's PA system that there was an "unattended" bicycle in the store and would the owner please come to the customer service counter. You know like they do (or used to do) for people who forgot and left their lights on.

That makes sense.

True, but there is also always the possibility that if using the OP situation as an example, if a store employee removed a customers property without having been told to do so by the management (and given the OPs statements it appears that that might have been the case) that the officer responding might take the customer's side and arrest the employee. Also think about this, according to several members here if an employee does anything to bring embarrassment to the business that the business would be justified in firing said employee.

Now don't you think that an employee taking it upon themselves to remove a customer's personal property from within the business and subsequently said customer ends up calling the cops and they send an officer to the location would qualify as "embarrassing" said business?

I can't believe this thread is still going on.

A breath of fresh air in a sea of confusion...

Policy varies considerably even within San Diego County. In the Gay district of urban San Diego people bring bicycles and dogs into grocery stores (Ralph's [Kroger], Trader Joe's, farmers market) and banks without so much as a raised eyebrow. In other parts of town, health laws are observed and dogs are barred from food handling establishments. Bicycles can't be brought in or taken through drive throughs. It seems to depend on the prevailing social milieu. In hep urban neighborhoods people are more permissive and relaxed. When you get out to East County with its pick'em up truck gunrack in the back window good ol' boy culture, it can be a whole different story. Duncan Hunter and his bro' constituency don't even want cyclists on their rural two lane highways. They even scatter tacks to discourage riders from passing through.

Thread's got legs.

On what conceivable charge?

As it happens, the question of creating a bailment through unauthorized parking of a bicycle is actually a test question in ch.23, Personal Property and Bailments, of McGraw-Hill's textbook Business Law, 14/e, by Mallor, Barnes, Bowers, and Langvart.

http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/site...pter_quiz.html

I won't spoil the surprise, you can take the quiz on-line for free.

The burden is on the bicycle owner to prove his case.
The seldom used mislaid property law argument requires the bicycle owner to prove that he "forgot" his bicycle and subsequently returned to retrieve it. A different scenario from what is decribed here.

Interesting quiz.
So... If I just dump something on your lawn, you are my bailor?
Goodluck taking that case.
In the real world, bailment is created explicit agreement. Typically, you've entrusted your property to someone presumably because they're an expert on whatever it is. Repair shop, etc.

What I know of bailments comes primarily from commercial insurance studies, with a bit of general business law.

In the real world, involuntary bailment really does exist, though the duty of care is much lower than for a voluntary bailment. People really do file claims over involuntary bailments, and sometimes they really do prevail.

If I leave valuable personal property on your premises in a manner that clearly shows no intent to abandon that personal property, you may indeed be considered an involuntary bailee. If I "dump something on your lawn," chances are good that you can assume I've abandoned it. If I carefully park a clean, well-maintained bicycle in a safe indoor location, chances are much better that you shouldn't assume I've abandoned it.

As an involuntary bailee, you'd generally be liable only for gross negligence in the care of the property. Whether setting an expensive bicycle out in a parking lot unattended in a high crime area would constitute gross negligence is for the judge and jury to decide, but your insurance carrier might decide it's safer and cheaper to settle than fight.

Disclaimer: laws vary significantly by state, I am not a lawyer, and if you don't see my name on your policy then I'm not your insurance agent. None of this is advice, just general discussion. Consult your own professionals for advice.

Well sence this is my post I fell I should have a bigger part in this then just letting others do the work for me. There have been more posts by more people then I would have thought when I make this thread. Hehe. I enjoy reading them although I have not been able to read all of them yet. Sence The only time I get to go on really is after work which is late, around 1am. anyways Ill get a chance to read them all when the posts get sent to my email. Thanks again.

This is getting beaten to death and I’m helping.
You’re looking at it through the lens of insurance. Insurers will often roll over, pay a small amount and close the case to save money. They operate from a cost savings standpoint, not generally a point of law.
I’m sure there are extenuating cases of involuntary bailment from gross negligence but they are difficult to prove…. “Yes your honor, I hate bicyclists and was being a spiteful d1ckhead when I tossed his bike out the door” does not happen. The counter defense will be an issue of public safety, which usually trumps all.
Back to topic, the situation described here does not fit the criteria. Constructive bailment usually requires a parting of the property. Who has possession of the bike when the rider is shopping on isle 4 and the store owner is taking inventory in isle 5? If the OP left the store, came back a day later and found his bike destroyed in their dumpster you may have something.
For a basic description, read here.
Really, the only point I’m trying to make on BF is - don’t get a false sense of security by thinking the store is responsible for your bike, just because you placed it within their 4 walls.

Insurance companies don't roll over too easily unless there's a plausible claim they might have to defend.

If the rider has parked the bike, not abandoned it, and is still in the store, the cyclist would generally still be deemed to have possession of the bike unless someone else takes possession of the bike by taking it away.

The store is not responsible for your bike unless they decide to take possession of it.

That's why most stores would call the owner over the PA to move the bike, and if they decided to move the bike themselves, they'd put it someplace safe.

My bike has been left in the area between the outside and inside doors where the shopping carts are stored at grocery stores. Usually, there's an open space large and unobtrusive enough for one to fit one's bike for a quick stop. The few times I didn't have a lock I left the bike in it's highest gear, velcro strapped(ankle reflector)the front brake lever and clipped my helmet around the seatube and rear wheel. Always park it so a thief would have to turn the bike completely around. Unless of course he/she was smart enough to just pick it up and carry it out. But, that would require planning instead of mere opportunity.

My bike isn't a name brand, high-end ride, so it's not a prarticularly desirable hit. I do remove anything one can just take off w/no struggle.

If they say no, I tell them I stepped in dog turd and I really did and that my tires are cleaner then leave.

Moving an unwanted bike to a different location, or even outside, presumably as a matter of public safety does not constitute taking possession.

Huh? How could one move an unwanted bike to a different location without taking possesion of said bike?

Which doesn't seem to have been the case with the OP. It appears to me that the store employee on his own decided to move the bike outside of the store. Then compounded his folly by acting like a smug little S.O.B. by approaching the owner of the bike and asking "are you looking for a bicycle?"

Given that the topic of employers firing employees for "embarrassing" the business this would seem to be a clear case in which an employee has caused the business embarrassment and the employee needs to be fired.

That is pretty much the same area that I will "store" or park my bicycle. The Office Depot that is closest to me has a nice foyer/vestibule as does the local Best Buy as do several grocery stores.

IF an employee has been told to do so by management I can see that argument being made, but in the case of the OP it seems as if the employee took matters into their own hands and then compounded their folly by being a smug S.O.B. after the fact by approaching the owner of the bike and saying "Are you looking for a bicycle?" Therefore I think that most would agree that at the very least that the employee did in fact take possession of said bicycle.

And if I had been the OP I would have called the police and reported that my bicycle had been stolen. Making as big of a "stink" as I could thus causing the store as much embarrassment as possible so that they would know that such treatment in the future is unacceptable.

That is a very good question. As wouldn't the employee have to put their hands on the bicycle in order to move it? And by doing so haven't they taken possession of said bicycle?

No…. Right now I’m looking out the window watching my neighbor sanding on an oak table in his driveway. If he goes inside or to the store, and it starts raining, I will move it under his awning. Do you think I’ve taken possession of his table? Or will you argue, “last person touching”? Come on people.

The difference is that in your case is that you have either direct or indirect permission from your neighbor to move his table under his awning to protect it from the weather. Whereas in the OP's case from the way the situation has been described the employee appears to have acted solely on his own i.e. approaching the customer and possibly smugly asking if he was looking for a bicycle.

Reasonably presenting the impression that said employee had moved the bicycle on his own and had not been instructed to do so by either the management or owner of the store.

And as has been pointed out, most stores would first instruct said employee to use the PA system to find the owner of the bicycle BEFORE deciding to move it on their own.