For those that don’t know him, Mark Rober has a large following on YouTube as he engineers “Glitter bombs” to try to deter porch thieves. He’s been at it for years and his latest video can be found here.
I 100% support his efforts and in this video he mentions his lawyers but I have to wonder, given that booby traps are illegal in most places, is he putting himself in legal jeopardy by creating a device that when opened, could create a distraction that could easily cause a driver to have a wreck? One obvious retort is that if you don’t want to have a wreck, don’t steal other people’s packages. And while I agree with this in theory, I also agree that if you don’t want to get caught in a bear trap, you shouldn’t break into peoples houses, yet a bear trap booby trap would almost certainly be considered illegal.
So, is Rober wrong for creating these potentially dangerous packages or is he in the clear?
Since this is GD and tradition dictates that an OP take a position, my hope is that Rober is in the clear because I have zero sympathy for people that steal. But I could see him in trouble if his package were to cause a wreck. Let’s hope it never happens.
Since he knows that people might, have and do open them in the car, he is prolly liable if anyone wants to sue him.
The AirBnB owner he (accidentally) got in the latest video prolly could have sued, too; I’m not aware of any legal right to explode glitter bombs in random people’s homes.
The limit to liability is “foreseeability” and, of course, it all comes down to argument (i.e. the correct answer to any legal question is “it depends”)
I think you’d have a good argument that it was not foreseeable that a person would drive recklessly by opening a package when they should have been paying attention to the road.
I guess it varies from state-to-state, but in Arkansas: “Any person who drives any vehicle in such a manner as to indicate a wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving.” Just opening a package while driving means you’re distracted and I think you could argue it counts as reckless driving.
I think @Moriarty is correct. Someone opening a package you left out while they are driving is not foreseeable. Foreseeability in law is about how likely something is to happen not whether or not it’s possible. I would think it far more likely that liability might come from someone being harmed or having property damaged by the booby trapped device. i.e. An allergic reaction to the stink liquid they used, damage to a vehicle because the smell won’t come out, glitter getting in someone’s eyes, etc., etc.
Exactly. He’s posted multiple videos of people opening the packages in their car. Imo there’s no good argument that he could not have reasonably foreseen it happening, since he has indisputably seen it happen many times.
Are we forgetting that the thief stole the package? Is that just considered perfectly OK, and Rober is the one liable for damages because the package is dangerous?
If I go into a chemical plant and steal some dangerous chemicals and they cause an explosion while I’m driving, is the chemical plant liable?
I don’t think so? IANAL, and “foreseeability” in this context appears to be at least partially a term of legal art, but I don’t think the principle only applies if nobody could possibly conceive of the outcome. Someone opening a package in their parked car is not at all unexpected. Someone opening a package while actually driving is doing someone extraordinarily stupid, regardless of whether the package is booby trapped or not.
I think the guy’s best defense against this sort of risk is just to put enough tape on the package that it can’t be opened one-handed, thus requiring someone trying to open it in a car to let go of the steering wheel with both hands. If the car is in motion and uncontrolled, it’s probably going to crash before the thief can even activate the booby trap.
Liability might still attach. Consider that if you booby-trap a shotgun pointing at a door saying “NO ADMITTANCE UNDER PENALTY OF DEATH” and someone breaks in, opens the door, and gets shot, you’ll be liable. Crazy but existing case law.
I agree with just about everything you said but I also think that breaking into someone’s home or business is extraordinarily stupid and yet those people are protected.
What if the thief, because of opening one in a car, causes an accident that kills or maims somebody else?
I have no idea whether that affects the legal liablilty; but at least some people in this thread seem to be thinking that any car accident could only affect the thief. That unfortunately isn’t always how car wrecks work.
I don’t see how that would change any analysis offered in this thread. If the booby trapper is liable for causing an accident that injures the thief, then he’s liable for an accident that injures a third party. If he’s not liable for an accident that injures the thief, then he’s not liable for an accident that injures a third party.
