Leaving all other arguments aside, do you acknowledge that you can’t set a booby trap on your property to harm or kill people?
There is a huge gulf between what some people think is reasonable behavior under the law, and how the law may be interpreted in the hands of slick lawyers and easily manipulated juries.
You can try and site that if you like. What you’re saying is the stronger mailboxes are somehow illegal.
They’re not.
A booby trap would be an active device. A stronger mailbox is not. Any injuries would be the result of doing this in a moving car and that makes the DRIVER responsible. that is the person who has created a dangerous situation.
I have a proposal for you. Do this to your mailbox, wait for someone to be critically injured hitting it, then let us know the outcome when they sue you. That should settle it.
Noted that you believe that a booby device is an active device and a stronger mailbox is not.
However, that was not my question. My question was if you acknowledge that you cannot set booby traps on your property with the intention to harm people.
I have one for you. Site your premise that an inert object on someone’s property is a civil liability.
I answered your question. A booby trap would be an active device. Otherwise, every object on someone’s property would be a booby trap by your definition. A stronger mailbox is just that, a stronger mailbox is just that.
I really don’t understand the confusion regarding intent. The physical threat is not the mailbox, it’s the speed of the vehicle. It’s a massively stupid and dangerous thing to do.
Not sure how to go about checking, but a good question is: have any such super-mailboxes been approved by the USPS?
The specifications I easily found are more about making sure they are not too flimsy.
I understand you don’t believe that reinforcing a mailbox make that a booby trap. You have repeated that.
Again, this is not answering my question. Do you acknowledge that setting a booby trap with the intent to harm someone is illegal?
I thought we were the only people with a driveshaft used as a post; my dad put a regular mailbox on the driveshaft, because our jerk neighbors across the street couldn’t drive, and kept backing into our mailbox. So he put the mailbox on the driveshaft which wouldn’t give way, but nor did it look like a giant brick and mortar R2-D2 like most other indestructible mailboxes we’ve seen.
I think it took one good bumper ding, and they watched what the hell they were doing from then on out.
If you mean an active device yes. Otherwise, it’s not a booby trap.
Today I learned that a pit filled with sharpened stakes isn’t a booby trap.
today you learned about gravity. that makes it an active trap. In the example of mailbox baseball, gravity is provided by the driver of the car. The person responsible for the injuries.
If someone trespasses onto my property and just happens to fall into a hole I’ve dug to trap coyotes, the gravitational force was provided by the trespasser’s weight, not the hole. It’s dangerous to walk around private property that you are not familiar with. The trespasser is responsible for his own injuries.
You just ignored what I said. A hole represents an active danger. A tree does not. Gravity doesn’t pull you into a tree. If you make someone liable for stationary objects located on their property then people could walk into a wall and declare the owner negligent.
A hole in the ground filled with spikes is a stationary object. It’s not an “active” danger. It won’t hurt anyone unless someone acts on it first: specifically, stepping on the palm fronds covering it. In both cases, it is the trespasser exerting force (in the physics sense) on an object on my property, leading them to harm themselves on a immobile feature.
No, you’re confusing the word stationary with the word “active”. In the case of a hole it’s active because gravity makes it an active trap. If you flip the hole upside down you don’t fall up into it.
In your example the hole is the trap and gravity activates it. If you trespass on my property and walk into a tree that’s not my problem. it’s not a trap.
I do not sense as much disagreement as may first seem. Everyone agrees that you are not obligated to make your place safe for trespassers. Nevertheless, traps are forbidden.
ETA: I can’t find updated info on the Snay v. Burr appeal, could be the gears are still turning
You’re confused about what the word “active” means.
And the mailbox is a trap, and acceleration activates it.