The “difficulty” is that your argument makes no sense, and lacks internal consistency.
But other than the fictional CSI example, who’s making a reinforced steel mailbox that’s designed to stealthily look like an ordinary mailbox?
My memory of a typical US mailbox is that it’s posted on a wooden 4x4 post with a right-angle cross-beam with a support, a sheet metal or plastic mailbox on the cross-beam, and some kind of concrete anchoring in the ground for the post. So if someone takes that typical mailbox look as a model, but creates a reinforced steel mailbox that looks exactly like that, then maybe the trap argument has some weight. But what seems to be happening in reality is that the post is replaced by a reinforced steel column, and the sheet metal or plastic mailbox is replaced by a plate-steel, or similarly strong, mailbox. Maybe it looks the same in the dark, but I’m not sure how that qualifies as a trap. It’s the difference between having a hole in your yard, versus having a spike pit.
and yet the judges linked above agree with me and not you.
The court ruled that an open pit is an “active” trap because of gravity?
Suppose you wanted to install a small fish pond in your front yard. Somebody could trip and fall into the fish pond and drown, but that’s unlikely to happen. And if it happens in the middle of the night, it’s reasonable to ask why someone was walking through your front yard in the middle of the night. Some of the arguments in this thread seem to be arguing that you can’t install that fish pond, because of the risk that someone might choose to walk through your front yard in the middle of the night. I strongly disagree with that argument, and almost find it ludicrous.
Your argument, and I’m not intending to strawman you, strikes me as saying that the fish pond is the same as a spike filled pit. I think there’s a big difference between an intended hazard, an obvious hazard, and a potential hazard. I can understand a difference of opinion on whether something is an obvious hazard or a potential hazard. But I think the equation of potential hazards and intended hazards is wrong.
Nobody said that. But they did say that if you’re annoyed by the neighbors jumping into your fish pond at night you can’t put iron spikes just under the surface of the water to impale them (and this has nothing to do with whether gravity is involved).
I don’t think anyone’s making that argument. Rather, the argument is, if you know that people are routinely trespassing on your property at night, you can’t dig a pit along the route they take, and then claim it was just a fish pond when they fall in and drown.
Right: so, is an “indestructible” mail box that’s designed to look exactly like a regular mailbox a “potential hazard” or an “intended hazard?” If you have a problem with people destroying your mailbox, and you replace it with something like this, that’s a legit attempt to protect your property, and not a trap. On the other hand, if you replace it with something that looks like this, except that you fill the box with cement and mount it on steel post, that’s pretty clearly intended as a trap to injure whoever has been busting up your mailboxes, and you should be legally liable for any injuries incurred if someone take a swing at it.
Nobody is saying that. A fish pond looks like a fish pond. It is an open and obvious hazard. Even a trespasser can see that there is this body of water in front of them that they should avoid stepping into.
And even if it is dark and a trespasser is there in the middle of the night, it is very likely that you didn’t install the fish pond as a trap to catch trespassers, and the burden would be on a would be trespasser plaintiff to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that you did. I would feel very comfortable defending that lawsuit.
What people have been talking about are things installed that act as booby traps.
You can keep saying this, but it doesn’t make it more true the more times you say it. A jury can look at the evidence and infer the intent from what they see.
Iron spikes under the water? No. Barbed wire around the pond? In my opinion, yes. Or for a better analogy, putting up a low wall around the pond. You make it more difficult to enter the pond, but if somebody chooses to do so, they have a harder time getting out. I don’t think a property owner should be penalised for taking a preventative measure, just because it places a risk on someone choosing to cause harm to that property, or interfering with that property because of their own carelessness.
Nobody in this thread has said otherwise.
You may have a different perspective on this thread than I do, but some of the posts seemed pretty clear that the man who put in a reinforced mailbox to prevent damage to it was morally responsible for the injury of the driver who ran into it, rather than the driver. I haven’t seen anything to support the idea that drivers, other than uninjured snowplough drivers, were regularly running into his mailbox.
Right, the wall is okay because it’s an obvious hazard. If you climb the wall, you know exactly what you’re getting into. Similarly, a brick mailbox is an obvious hazard: if you hit that mailbox with a bat, you know you’re going to fuck yourself up. Nobody’s arguing that either of those should be illegal. We’re talking about booby traps, not obvious hazards. A re-enforced mailbox designed to look like a normal mailbox isn’t an obvious hazard, it’s a trap intended to injure someone.
What? That’s the whole subject of the thread. If a mailbox is up-armored it’s a threat to someone playing mailbox-baseball and a jury gets to decide what to believe.
how many times does someone have to post a link showing a normal looking mailbox made of heavy gauge steel?
Yes, they have.
The comment was a response to people saying that you cannot do things to protect your property. You absolutely can. You just can’t hide the protection in the hopes that someone thinks it is the regular and injures themselves.
And a jury can listen to evidence and decide why a man put up that mailbox. If they credit the man’s testimony that he is a manly man who spreads his testosterone everywhere wanting a mailbox that stands up to gale force winds, and then snorts a line of testosterone afterwards, then he is fine. If they believe that he set that up hoping that young punk kids would take a swing at it and hurt themselves, then he pays.
Nobody came up with this idea, nor is anyone making it up. It is indisputable law.
Sure. If a reinforced steel post is a 4x4 column painted with a wood grain, and a plate metal mailbox is designed to look like a plastic mailbox, then it’s an illegal ambush. But has anyone actually ever done anything like that? Other than the years-ago fictional CSI concrete mailbox case? I’m arguing that a mailbox owner should be able to freely reinforce their mailbox to prevent vandalism without worrying about the consequences of a bad driver running into their mailbox, or a vandal not checking on the durability of the mailbox before they decide to strike it. It may be that the mailbox owner is creating an obvious hazard for people who drive into their mailboxes, or decide to hit them with bats, but if it’s an obvious hazard, or even an undisguised one, then it’s the responsibility of the bad driver/vandal to avoid the hazard, not the owner to look after the fate of a bad actor.
Omniscient was commenting on the morality of this specific action. He made no claim on whether the mailbox owner was likely to be legally liable. At any rate, it appears the lawsuit in question was initially denied (Snay v. Burr, 156 N.E.3d 399 | Casetext Search + Citator) though it is under appeal (Public Docket).
It sounds like you are in violent agreement with everybody except Magiver.
Let’s review:
So I’m focusing on a specific post to refute your “nobody” statement. Omniscient obviously believes that reinforced mailboxes cause a harm that the owner is responsible for.
But let’s see if that’s a unique exception. It’s not.
There’s a significant principle involved in these arguments. How far is an individual entitled to protect his property versus relying on the state to protect his property? I think the individual should have substantial rights that should exceed the rights of those wishing to cause harm to his property, only stopping short of causing active harm, whether by a present violent act or a pre-planned ambush with no intention but to cause harm. I strongly disagree with people who think otherwise.
If a heavy gauge mailbox is legal to sell and there are no restrictions in the construction of mailboxes then there is nothing to base a case on. It’s perfectly legal. The answer to all questions about a stronger mailbox is that it’s there to resist destruction. No harm intended. I’m not sure what you don’t understand about this beyond an emotional tirade about testosterone. The burden of proof is on the prosecution and liability falls on the reason for injury. That would be doing something stupid in a moving car. There is no legal entitlement to soft mailboxes for the purpose of destruction.