You’ve “explained” this just be asserting it over and over again. I’ve found that less persuasive than the actual legal arguments from lawyers. And their arguments make sense - if you intend to hurt someone, and make something that could be more likely to lead to injury, then you may be held liable. That’s a pretty simple argument that you’ve totally failed to address.
You ignore the prevailing arguments. Heavy duty mailboxes are LEGAL. They don’t require explanation for their existence. There is no due-diligence in the certification of their sturdiness.
Even more relevant, the legal premise of personal responsibility. As a general rule, you can’t engage in dangerous activity and transfer your liabilities to someone else. The people responsible for injuries are going to be the driver and the person wielding the bat. I’ve cited the legal premiss of personal responsibility.
All that may be true, but if you modify your mailbox with the intention of someone getting hurt, and then someone gets hurt, you might be held liable. Especially if your intent can be proven. That’s very simple and straight forward.
Imagine you pour concrete in your mailbox. And you email your neighbor telling them that you’re doing this because you want the mailbox baseball kid to have his arm broken. And then the kid hits your box and breaks his arm. Are you really arguing that there’s no chance you could face legal liability for this?
Alternately, change the concrete to making your mailbox super strong and sturdy, but with the same intention and email evidence.
Imagine a law that specifies the limits of sturdiness for mailboxes.
In the meantime, we’re left with legal expectations of personal liability for ones actions. In this case, that is the driver and the person with the bat.
If you intended that someone got hurt, and this could be proven, and then someone gets hurt, you might be held liable. The intention is key, and you’ve totally ignored this.
I’m pretty sure that principle holds for almost any circumstance, if not all of them. Suppose you know that someone has a particular tic when they drive - perhaps they apply the brakes too late habitually, and usually skid to a stop. Suppose this person needs a car. You buy them a car. But unbeknownst to them, you want them dead, and you did a bunch of research and found a specific make and model of car that, sometimes when the brakes lock, the brakes totally fail. You intended them to die, and you found a specific car that greatly increases their chance of death. So then they die in a crash after their brakes fail. If your intention that they die can be proven, you will be held liable for their death, even though it’s totally legal to purchase a car for someone. Even if they were speeding at the time of their death, or even if they were driving recklessly - you intended that they die, and engineered a circumstance that increases the chance of their death, and you could be held liable.
The overriding legal issue here is personal responsibility of the person(s) committing a dangerous act.
If mailboxes can’t be discernible and pose a threat to mailbox baseball aficionados then manufacturers would be held liable.
Wow. You keep driving off the reservation with bizarre what-ifs. What if you addressed the legal concept of personal liability for one’s actions.
Exactly - if you intend for someone to get hurt, and you engineer a circumstance that increases this possibility that someone could get hurt, and then someone gets hurt precisely in that circumstance, then you could be held personally liable for your actions. Maybe you’re finally getting this?
As the mailbox doesn’t pose a threat to safe activity the fault is on the person doing the unsafe activity. Again, if someone gets hurt trying to hit a mailbox from a moving car it’s on them. The driver and the batter are going to be charged with reckless behavior.
If you intended they get hurt, and took action to increase this chance, and your intention can be proven, then you may be held personally liable for your actions. Even if they’re also held liable for their actions. Pretty basic stuff - your actions, your liability.
Maybe you weren’t aware that multiple parties can be legally determined to have some partial responsibility for an injury?
No. You can say this over and over and it doesn’t transfer the liability of a dangerous act to an object that is legal and dormant in normal activity. The mailbox is safe for normal activity. It’s not safe, regardless of how it’s constructed, for mailbox baseball. The court will recognize the self imposed danger of this activity. It will recognize a legally constructed mailbox is not a booby trap. the person who will get charged is the driver and the person swinging the bat.
Unless you can cite mailbox baseball is safe then you have no argument.
Your assertions are unpersuasive. And there’s no transfer of liability - the liability is shared, since both parties took actions, with the intent of harm, that increased the chance of injury.
It’s a pretty basic legal principle that you can be held liable for your actions if those actions increase the chance of someone’s injury, if such injury is your intention. You haven’t convinced me (or anyone, AFAICT) that this mailbox circumstance is somehow the perfect and only circumstance for which this basic legal principle doesn’t apply. Your actions, your intention, therefore your liability.
Another way to say this - person A takes some premeditated action that increases the chance of person B getting hurt. Person A intends for person B to get hurt. Person B gets hurt in precisely that exact circumstance. Person A may be held liable for their actions. Not for the actions of person B, but for their own actions that increased this chance of injury. This goes for cars or mailboxes or any other civil circumstances.
I cited how the law reads regarding personal liability for one’s actions. You can pray to og that somebody doing something dangerous gets hurt but it’s still a legal mailbox. You CANNOT be harmed by it through normal activity. The people legally responsible are those who engage in the dangerous activity. they will be charged with a crime if someone is hurt.
I again invite you to cite striking anything with a bat from a moving car is safe. I also invite you to cite that property be maintained against dangerous acts.
None of that is relevant if you intend to harm someone and engineer a circumstance, purposefully, to increase the chance of that harm (which would be a dangerous activity that you engineered through your actions). If you take those actions, and someone gets hurt, you might be held liable for your actions. Doesn’t matter what anyone else does - maybe they’ll share liability, but their liability doesn’t affect yours.
This is just a general principle, regardless of the specifics. Mailbox specifics aren’t exceptions to this general principle. Or at least I remain unconvinced that actions with the intent to harm don’t count under those circumstances.
If my son gets hurt hitting your mailbox, and I find an email and a witness that attests to your hope and intention that my son get hurt hitting your mailbox due to your actions, and I bring that to a lawyer and then a judge, then that lawsuit will be allowed and we’ll both be able to make our cases to a jury.
Are you seriously arguing that no lawyer would take that case, or no judge would allow it to proceed? Because that sounds crazy.
liability would consist of installing an unsafe mailbox. There is nothing unsafe about a sturdier mailbox. You could intend that reinstalling an identical mailbox would harm someone if they tried to destroy it. At the end of the day, it’s still a legally installed mailbox.