• Talnar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    90
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    I mean, if Tesla thinks the guy is the owner, then he should be able to know where it is and control it. If he was no longer the owner, they should have updated that with Tesla.

    • DoomBot5@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s not about who is the owner. They both were. It’s about the fact that Tesla only supports having 1 owner, and the husband set himself up as the owner and added the wife as an additional driver.

      Honestly, I don’t see a good way out of this without adding a feature that only the profile that unlocked the car last being able to see where it is. That’s not a feature they have, nor are legally required to provide.

    • 800XL@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      Usually in cases like this the court looks to who makes the payments. He may be co owner but if he hasn’t made any payments since separating and hasn’t used the vehicle it isn’t his.

  • sugarfree@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    According to a lawsuit filed by the abused, the man was listed as the primary owner of the 2016 Tesla Model X they shared

    He’s allowed to track his own car lol

    • cooopsspace@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      11 months ago

      To be fair, if he knowingly used the feature at all he also knows he breached the restraining order.

      The correct outcome here was he declares it to the court and the car becomes single owner.

  • I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    11 months ago

    The honor system nature of restraining orders allowed the abusive husband to break the restraining order. They just make it extra illegal when the restrained person goes ahead and commits whatever crime they were going to commit anyway.

  • Cyber Yuki@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    Wait a minute. The cars can barely drive, and now you want them to enforce the law???

    That is the most insane shit I’ve ever heard.

    • nodsocket@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Imagine if your self driving car refused to take you to certain areas due to government orders.

      And then crashed into a motorcycle because self driving cars don’t work and you were supposed to be paying attention even though it’s marketed as self driving.

  • virr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Sounds like the restraining order should have listed out additional remedies, or maybe even made her the sole owner.