In the case of a mailbox you can make it robust enough to withstand a baseball bat. What injures someone striking it is not the mailbox, it’s the speed of the vehicle. You can pound on a rock all day long with a bat without serious injury.
Which I believe fits your point.
More or less. If the purpose of your mailbox is to receive mail, then all is well.
If the purpose is to hurt people or wreck cars, then no.
tl:dr they are perfectly fine with you building your own mailbox. You have to write in to request the requirements though, they are not on the website. (which is weird.)
There are some very nice mailboxes around, I would sure be P****D if some hooligan considered it just a mild crime to smash one of these:-
https://www.gosocial.co/20-crazy-mailboxes-that-youll-have-to-see-to-believe/
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=mailboxes+that+are+copies+of+actual+houses
Moderator Warning
This is an official warning for personal insults outside of the Pit.
That describes the support pole. There is nothing about the mailbox itself. And even for the pole, the term “light gauge” is not well defined.
Thanks for posting that. Very creative mailboxes. I like the one with the hand squeezing the damaged mailbox. Lemonade from lemons.
I’ve seen a couple of them designed to resist damage. one was a sturdy mailbox on a post mounted car spring. The other was a mailbox on the end of a long horizontal pole that was mounted on what looked like a pivot mechanism.
How about if I make a a super-strong, indestructible mailbox, with an I-beam post and a box made of 1/2" steel to render it impervious-to-damage-but-still-useful-as-a-mailbox, and put a sign next to it saying: “For mail only. Attempts to damage this mailbox could cause personal injury.”
I think the argument would be that that is fine. You are not overtly attempting to make a mantrap. If the mailbox is clearly a really bad idea to take out with a baseball bat from a car, you are not setting a trap. If you make the mailbox cosmetically identical to a normal mailbox, and write the sign in 10 point font, your intent is perhaps more in question. Again, the don’t be a dick rule comes into play. Once someone is hurt all the backyard lawyering you can muster is immaterial. Your intent and culpability will be judged in court, not an internet forum. Better get a lawyer son, you better get real good one.
The second question would be about dangerous roadside obstructions. You may well fall afoul of one if your area has such regulations. Clearly if hit by a car, the car will come off pretty badly. There may be overarching regulations that cover a lot more ground than you think. Build the mailbox with a breakaway mount and it would likely be fine.
This is somewhat related.
Every so often there makes the news of “anti-rape” condoms where a woman wears them, then if a man attempts to rape her something REALLY bad happens to his genitals.
Could a rapist sue his victim for permanent damage to his appendage?
People can bring suit for just about anything they want. We might not know if he would win unless a test case actually goes to the courts. IMHO as a non-lawyer I would think that there is no jury that would find for a rapist if it’s a clear-cut case of rape. OTOH if a woman is hanging out in bars trying to entrap scummy men into this situation à la “Promising Young Woman” rape would be much harder to prove and he might have a case. Maybe even a criminal case.
Some of those brick mailboxes don’t look much different than say, the brick gateposts for wrought iron driveway gates. One of my relatives had a nice old stone fence with the gateposts, probably as close to the road as a mailbox - except there was a ditch over a foot deep and maybe two feet wide between the pavement and the stones, which probably means the city would be liable for damages before he would. Plenty of people around me have ornamental large stones on their lawn.
I believe the point was (and has been beaten to death) - the TV show referenced, this was simply a trap not a mailbox.
Any mailbox which results in an accident, the court will decide to what extent the mailbox was unreasonably break-away proof, to what extent it was an unavoidable hazard, how hazardous, forseeable risk, etc. I guess what you do depends on how you think a local jury will decide.
If you install it with the foreseeable knowledge it may harm someone and there is evidence that you installed it with the expectation that someone might be harmed, then you intended that harm.
I was once on a jury where we could determine if both parties shared some responsibility:
“Your Honor, we find that the plaintiff and the defendant are both major jerks and share the responsibility for what happened. We recommend splitting the claim 50:50.”
“Your Honor, we found that it was common knowledge that people set up reinforced mailboxes. People were warned about the dangers of this type of vandalism. Although both the plaintiff and the defendant were major jerks and share responsibility, we’re going to recommend splitting the claim 25:75.”
I some states that split would guarantee a complete win for the defendant. Most states apportion fault according to the jury split, but a significant minority will deny a claim to a plaintiff who is at least 50% at fault entirely.
How can a state have a notion of fractional fault at all, and still completely deny a claim to a plaintiff who’s 50% at fault?
The injured party may not be the responsible party at all. Even if the injured party is a responsible party, there are often multiple parties with fractional fault: 5, 10 ,35,50%. And depending on who has the most insurance, the money may all come from the party with 5% fault.
In Engineering cases like the Surfside building collapse, there are often multiple responsible parties. The owners may be partly responsible for the building collapse: if they are 49% responsible, they may get 51% of loss. If they are 51% responsible, they may get nothing (HYPOTHETICAL I know nothing about Florida law).
It is a halfway position between the old doctrine of contributory negligence–that a plaintiff with any fault at all should not recover—and the idea of full comparative fault.
It is the thought that if it was at least half your fault, then you don’t belong in court…be more careful next time.
I assume such spilts are only a matter of a civil action. Thus a criminal action won’t have such a notion of a spit?
So dead teenager’s parents sue mailbox owner for damages, and may be denied any, but mailbox owner could still be convicted of reckless endangerment or manslaughter.
Those of us outside the USA often find it a bit difficult to disentangle the mess of civil suits from criminal actions that seem to follow nearly every event. Following the Surfside collapse, one engineer noted that once something like this happens, everyone sues everyone else, just as a matter of course. Long before even the cause of the collapse is know everyone has engaged lawyers.
IANAL. I suppose this scenario could occur but seems unlikely to me because the burden of proof to find for the plaintiff in a civil case is preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not) whereas in a criminal case conviction requires evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.