That’s what my grandfather did: he put in a solid steel mailbox, with a strong post, to deter the assholes from wacking – certainly not a booby trap. At most, it might have given them one fuck of a recoil, (which probably would’ve have made my grandfather smile), but that’s about it.
(Besides – wouldn’t putting out a mailbox full of concrete defeat the purpose of a mailbox in the first place?)
It is a pretty old law review article, but it discusses it. The short version is if someone could be held liable for libel (say that three times fast) during litigation, then that would interfere with a search for the truth. If you think about it, if it were permitted, then every defendant would file such a suit.
And IIRC you are from near Pittsburgh. I am from north central West Virginia. My grandfather also did a lot of things he shouldn’t have. 
Which, again, makes me not unsympathetic to the argument that @Magiver keeps making. Something just seems wrong about having to pay for a kid’s injuries because he illegally took a swing at your mailbox. Justice doesn’t seem served with that result, but after one thinks about it, it makes some sense. What does the justice system do to kids for swinging at mailboxes? Does it impose possibly crippling corporal punishment? No? Then why allow one guy to do it?
Then you’re in the clear. But let’s pretend that you didn’t replace your door with a steel door covered in woodgrain, let’s pretend you replaced the lower panel (that the vandals keep kicking in) with plate glass, painted to look like wood. That’s a trap, and you could get in trouble for it.
If it’s a reinforced mailbox, you’re also in the clear… unless you installed it as a trap.
If you put up a mailbox shaped object as a trap for unruly kids who were annoying you, it’s possible you could be considered liable for any damage caused by the trap. In the OP, it was a fictional mailbox filled with concrete. If I was on a civil jury, I’d consider that a trap, something intended to “give those little bastards a surprise”, and if that surprise was a broken wrist, I might be inclined to make you pay for it.
If it’s a welded steel mailbox (like my dad had after multiple lost mailboxes) I would not consider it a trap, unless there was some other evidence (that I’m unable to conjure up here) that it was indeed installed as a trap rather than as a mailbox.
In this day and age, it would likely be a YouTube video entitled, “Watch me turn my mailbox into a booby trap for the kid who keeps smashing it.”
Well, as I said, I don’t believe it was a booby-trap, just something that was made to not fall apart if it was hit by something. That was all.
I would imagine the only injuries they’d risk would be ones that might happen simply from playing mailbox baseball in the first place. I mean, are steel mailboxes anything new, really?
If you read through the whole thing you’d see the long version.
The general principle regarding the privilege is:
“… . that a person is not subject to be sued for . . . libel for defamatory statements in papers filed in judicial proceedings or before bodies whose duties are quasi judicial, boards or commissions. But this rule obviously does not render one immune
who has made such defamatory statement; he may be dealt with
under the criminal law.” ’
The privilege operates to relieve the author from civil liability but offers
no protection to the criminal responsibility. 4 The general rule is that
when the libel is published in due course of a judicial proceeding it may
come under the privilege against civil liability.
But criminal libel is just not a thing anymore. Can you give me the name of a single person who in the last 100 years went to jail or prison for libel?
I don’t have to. You were wrong and I corrected you with your own cite.
I’m finally done.
Are you a lawyer?
IANAL, but I’m going to guess that IRL, simply reinforcing your mailbox while still maintaining its utility as a mailbox does not set you up for potential litigation from people injuring themselves while committing an act of vandalism.
No, just the usual law courses in college.
And considering how many reinforced mailboxes are on the market your premise has survived the test of time. If installing a stronger mailbox that looked like a weaker one was the subject of litigation they would have been set upon as a source of compensation.
But he has the certainty of A Supreme Court Justice! And what can education do against the power of certainty?
Huh. All these years I thought “mailbox baseball” was just some fanciful thing kids did in movies set in the 50s. Didn’t realize it was non-fictional, is still a pastime, given the myriad other ways teenagers have to distract themselves, nor still frequent. Guess that’s urban living, for you. Here all we have to worry about is the occasional stray bullet.
It’ll be interesting to see how that Spay v Burr case in Ohio appealed to the state supreme court ends up. (That’s the case mentioned where a driver crashed into a mailbox that was reinforced to deter vandals.) Last article I read was in July stating a ruling should be forthcoming, but I haven’t seen anything yet.
Keep in mind that this case is very different from the trap mailbox that’s been under discussion. The mailbox in that court case was very obviously reinforced, and the driver slid into it by mistake. It doesn’t really have bearing on the question of intentionally rigging your mailbox to injure somebody.
Oh, sure, I know that – it’s just another point for the homeowner to consider before doing something like this.
The basic premise of the Ohio case is far reaching. Does a person have the right to reinforce property against vandalism/accidental abuse and to what extent. I would expect the decision to be based on normal circumstances.
I would think it hard to establish that an immovable object on private property require a specified shear limit. there are probably hundreds of thousands of gated homes with massive pillars designed to stop someone entering the property. Then there are businesses with the same desire for security. There are millions of electrical poles that you don’t want to hit with a car.
In the case of the truck it involved an accident where the truck rolled 100 feet after hitting the mailbox. He was driving on a road with patches of black ice. Is personal property legally placed off the roadway required to be safe to hit?
A very far reaching case.
You didn’t understand his cite.