Interestingly, a majority of judges in the original appeal found that “the mailbox was an open and obvious hazard which would obviate any duty on the part of the landowner in this case.”
The mailbox is a fixed object with no owner activating property that makes it a trap.
the acceleration that might cause injury is entirely driver induced. whether the mailbox is made out of steel, brick or concrete is not relevant to the driver’s actions. There are no requirement that it be made out of paper mache. it’s not a pinata.
Just Ike the pit trap.
No it’s not like the pit trap. I supplied the logic test for this. If the “pit trap” was above, a person wouldn’t fall into it. Gravity is necessary for it to be a trap.
There is no trap function of a mailbox. It’s completely inert. It will not harm you if you walk up and touch it. It’s no different than a tree, a wall or decorative lawn art as long as it’s positioned out of the right of way.
Now there IS a danger in driving someone while they strike objects. It’s the speed of the car and that’s the driver’s fault. There is no safe way to do this. there are no specifications for mail boxes regarding maximum structural load.
It’s got exactly the same characteristic you just used to describe the mailbox: it is a “fixed object with no owner activating property.” Gravity, of course, not being an “owner activating property.”
I did not ignore what you said. I just consider it nonsensical. How is a hole possibly considered active? Gravity acts on everything. A hole is a stationary object. It’s just a hill in reverse. Instead of rising up from the ground, it goes into the ground. It is not any more an active danger than a wall or a tree. It doesn’t reach out and grab you when you walk by. Gravity doesn’t pull you into a hole any more than it pulls you into a tree. Gravity simply pulls you to the bottom of a hole if you walk into the hole–where you don’t belong in the first place, so according to your “logic” you deserve what you get.
Er - isn’t the point of not having a pit with sharpened stakes because firemen, EMS, etc. might be expected to be on your property in the event of an emergency?
Try a web search on “indestructable mailbox”: Also see: https://www.mailboxes.com/heavy-duty-rural-mailbox-black/?msclkid=71a2fc89b2851466eb7d9dad543a981e
I know that you asked about USPS Approved mailboxes, but this one might be of interest to others, even if it is only listed as “conforms with postal requirements”:
What pulled the Ohio guy into the mailbox post was good old Isaac Newton operating not through gravity but via black ice, a similarly ineluctable force of nature.
The tractor part undoubtedly serves as a good anchor, but I can’t see mailmen agreeing to stoop that low to put mail in the box.
My aunt has some vacation property in the mountains. People ride their ATMs and motorcycles over private property, often causing damage.
If a person has a property that they know that people ride their motorcycles through at high speeds, can they put high tension piano wire at the height that would decapitate the person? (Assuming the wire is both strong enough to either decapitate the person or cause serious injuries, but also would not be readily visible.)
This would also not be an “active” device according to your definition, but I can’t see how it wouldn’t be considered a trap.
I agree that if they put up a concrete wall and painted in bright yellow and white stripes, that the wall would not be a trap.
I am not a lawyer, but this comes back to the question you had earlier about intent. ISTM that setting out a device such the piano wire with the intent that the rider is harmed is a trap, even though the trap relies on the speed of the rider.
The intent here is pretty obviously to injure.
But you can make a strong, reasonable argument that I installed a working mailbox with USPS approved dimensions made of 1 inch steel because I was tired of the expense and trouble of constantly replacing ones that people were hitting with bats. Just how flimsy does a mailbox have to be before it is not considered a trap?
Pretty common around here is for landowners to run a heavy cable between two trees and hang a “DO NOT ENTER” or “NO TRESPASSING” sign at chest height.
ATVs and motorcycles occasionally hit the cable, but the landowner seems ok liability wise. Piano wire without sign? Nah.
Again, I’m not a lawyer, but ISTM if the mailbox is obviously reinforced then the vandals would know it’s dangerous and then the liability would be less.
I suspect that it’s a trap if it looks like a standard mailbox but inside is reinforced, and the intention is to harm the person by tricking them into thinking that it’s just a normal mailbox, but when they hit it from a moving car the bat is going to fly back at them.
Yeah, I think so.
Yes, inertia is as inescapable as gravity. 
That is probably important, but not the point, legally. The point is that you cannot booby-trap your property with the intent to cause harm, regardless of the intent of the person you are harming. (Apparently in some states you can blow their heads off with a semi-automatic weapon if you are actually holding it, you just can’t rig up an automated version.)
The point that many posters have tried to make is that it is not illegal to make as strong or as flimsy of a mailbox as you like. This seems to be misunderstood. You can dig a moat around your mailbox and post a sentry on it.
What you cannot do, and what has been repeated, is that you may not construct a trap. You may not design a mailbox with the intent that if someone hits it they will injure themselves more so than they otherwise would by the dangerous act of generally hitting mailboxes. Disguising a strong mailbox as a weak mailbox is good evidence of this intent. Further, this law is so old and well settled that I don’t know why we are even debating it.
Active v. passive, the fact that nobody should be hitting mailboxes anyways, that injuries can happen by hitting regular mailboxes, etc. are all irrelevant points.
because you can fall into it. Yes gravity acts on everything. But it pulls things down, not up, not sideways
A tree is fixed inert object that does not draw you into it. You can touch it climb it or lean up against it. it does not trap you in any way. A hole is a trap that is activated when walked into. I really don’t understand the difficulty in this.
If you read the court cases that were posted above you’d see the Judges agree with my premise. unless it is blocking the road a mailbox can be built to withstand abuse. Various examples of them have been provided in this thread.
How do you not understand the danger is in the moving car? That’s where the liability exists.
No, it’s not evidence of anything. You can’t tell what gauge steel one mailbox is from another and it’s perfectly legal to strengthen a mailbox to resist damage. A homeowner is under no obligation to install a mailbox, a statue, a tree, or any other object so that it is destructible. That includes replacing a flimsy mailbox with a stronger one.
Here’s a video of a production mailbox being hit with a baseball bat.. It’s repeatedly beaten until the bat breaks.
Show me the law that says it’s illegal. The intent is to resist damage.