the evidence will show that the mailbox is legal and poses no threat in normal use. It will show that upgrading a mailbox to resist vandalism is legal. It will show there is no duty to advertise the strength of the mailbox. It will show that mailbox baseball is not normal use and highly dangerous.
Legally irrelevant.
Legally irrelevant.
Untrue in the context in which you are stating it.
True, but only partially legally relevant.
Showing a mailbox is legal and poses no threat in normal use is highly relevant.
Just so we’re on the same page, the #3 instance is what the original OP made reference to in a work of fiction, 10 years ago. They did raise the question about the alternative of a rugged-but-functional mailbox, but did not bring up the further matter about making it obvious to the passerby that it is especially reinforced vs. making it look innocuous.
Right. It must look like what it is. If it doesn’t look like what it is, then why not? If there is a good reason, then “ah” the homeowner is probably off the hook. If there is not a good reason, that reason being to injure someone who fucks with it, the homeowner will likely be held liable, despite the dangerous and/or illegal acts of others. Basic law, no matter if some people would like the law to be different.
You can hammer a legally installed mailbox all you want and it won’t hurt you. Bring your best ball bat or a sledge hammer. It will just sit there. You might break the bat over time but that’s about the extent of it.
And before any of this happens the defendant is likely going to counter sue the vandal(s) for reckless acts leading to injury on private property. He will also likely have a criminal case to back up the claim.
Nobody argues with any of that. If someone beats on a mailbox and doesn’t get hurt, then there is no possible liability to the homeowner. If someone hits a mailbox and sues the homeowner, that person has an uphill climb to make in order to get damages from the homeowner. Again, nobody disputes how very little duty a homeowner owes to someone who would hit his mailbox with a baseball bat. We agree with this, no?
Okay. So the only way, and I mean the only way that some little punk who swings at a homeowner’s mailbox might get some money from the homeowner if he gets hurt is as described above. If the homeowner made the mailbox very strong, but deceptively outwardly weak looking in hopes that the punk kid will swing at it and hurt himself.
All evidence that might cast light on that intent is relevant as a homeowner will likely not just admit that is why he installed it that way. So we can hypo it to death about whether it is legal, whether he ordered it on Amazon, whether it was home built, etc. etc. All of those facts will matter to a jury. You keep saying “it is legal.” Well, of course it is legal. Aluminum and steel are legal, and AFAIK there are no laws about the strength of mailboxes. But that’s not the end of the question of liability. I can hurt someone with legal implements. Guns are legal, but I can’t shoot someone.
You keep giving these evasive statements, but at the end of the day, did you try to bait the boy into hitting your mailbox? No, he didn’t have to hit your mailbox, and he shouldn’t ever hit anyone’s mailbox. But if that is what you (general you) tried to do, then you or your insurance will pay, and depending on your state law, you might see a criminal charge for it. That’s a fact. Agree or disagree, it is a fact.
You would be hard pressed to establish that installing a legal mailbox is actionable against intent. You can hope someone does something stupid but that’s not illegal. putting dynamite in the mailbox would be illegal. Installing a sturdy mailbox because you don’t want it destroyed is not. You can wish all manner of evil but your actions are not reflected in your wish.
And if you want to get into the weeds, you would have to establish the cause of the injury which would be a defending lawyers dream. It would come back in a counter claim as to the real cause of the injury which would be the vandal’s.
Ultimately, the mere act of installing a sturdy mailbox is not sufficient to imply liability.
However, other acts may influence liability. Such as modifying the new mailbox to make it a more attractive target, or to make injury more likely. Or producing a video of your intent to cause injury and film the vandal’s misfortune for the amusement of your subscribers.
This is what I am having a hard time with. Short of putting a “hit me” sign on the mailbox, how can you make it a more attractive target unless you take the position that having a regular mailbox (i.e you camouflage a super-duper reinforced mailbox as a regular one) actively encourages people to hit it.
It is more attractive by making it look weaker than it really is. This isn’t difficult. You can have a strong mailbox, the Ft. Knox of mailboxes; you can have a weak one.
The only thing we are saying that you may not do is purposefully have a very strong one and make it look like a weak one in the hopes that the little bastard kid takes a swing at it and rips his arms off. That’s all. A very sliver of possible liability for the homeowner: setting a trap.
It’s not so much that a regular mailbox is inherently attractive to vandals, but there’s a clear pattern of behavior regarding your mailbox, which is why you’re replacing it.
You replace the mailbox in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, it’s no big deal. You alter the mailbox… it begs the question of why. You alter the mailbox to look like the mailbox that was routinely vandalized, it suggests the reason is to make sure the vandals don’t stop.
Right, but keep in mind that these questions will only come from the other direction. Kid hits a mailbox that should usually fly off the post and he pops another beer, but this time he is in the hospital. Why? If it is only because he hit your (the general your) mailbox, then a lawyer will be wondering (and getting all of the information) as to why your mailbox caused these injuries.
And the law is…(drum roll) if the general you constructed it to look like a “hittable” mailbox so the little bastard would hurt himself, then you might be paying.
How exactly do you certify that mailboxes fly off the post?
Let’s say I have an expert that opines that a typical “mailbox baseball” situation is that a kid takes a swing and the mailbox goes flying.
Prove this is common knowledge.
Prove the homeowner knows this.
Show your work.
I have many times over and over. It is something that really isn’t susceptible to proof because it is so old and well known.
That’s an amazing contradiction. There isn’t proof because it’s so old and well known.
If you said that in court the judge would have to gavel the jury quiet because of the laughter.
I’m not even scratching the surface of the kinds of questions that would befall the plaintiff.
Just because you say this doesn’t make it true. Like I have cited twice, legally a trap needs to be indiscriminate - reinforced mailboxes are not. You don’t claim it is an attractive nuisance and we have repeatedly dismissed your strawman that the mailbox-reinvorcers are on youtube/write an email/yell out in court that they hope the punk-ass shatters every bone in his arms.
No, but if your actions are deliberately tempting someone to do something stupid (and especially if you’ve expressed any gleeful anticipation of bad stuff happening to someone after you successfully tempt them to do something stupid) then it sure does look like you’re deliberately trying to get someone hurt. And you can be liable for that.
I mean, deceptively reinforcing a mailbox so that it’s massively strong but still looks ordinarily flimsy and destructible doesn’t really have much plausible purpose except to try to tempt someone to do something stupid.
The fact that it’s not actually an illegal act to deceptively reinforce your mailbox doesn’t change the optics. You still end up looking like you’re trying to bait somebody into playing mailbox baseball at a much greater risk than the risk they perceive.
You can go on repeating “Nuh-uh!” as much as you like, but vehemently denying that you had any harmful intent is not necessarily going to influence a jury more strongly than their own perception that your behavior sure looks like you had harmful intent.