You can pour $2 worth of concrete into a cheaper mailbox that will look no different than any other mailbox including a $100 one. Why buy the more expensive one if you can’t tell how sturdy it is by looking at it? the intent is to resist damage.
That’s rediculous. Personal responsibility will be taken into account if the person is doing something recklessly dangerous. You can’t drive into a tree and claim it’s the tree’s fault.
You can prove someone deliberately hit it from a moving car which is dangerous and the reason for the injury. The mailbox did not project itself in any way.
Has this been proven? I mean, I searched for mailbox baseball injuries, and found one example where someone hit a telephone pole with a bat, the bat flew from his hands and hit a person behind him. Happened 7 years ago. Other than that, zero. I mean, nothing, a veritable desert of injuries. The closest thing I saw was someone getting their face rubbed against a newspaper box when trying to play.
So… prove it’s dangerous.
And in your example, who was charged?
You can keep asserting that, but unless you find the 12 dimmest bulbs in America your jury isn’t gonna believe that. If you disagree and want to roll the dice, you go right ahead, though.
Great, so what section of the legal code talks about “personal responsibility”?
You don’t think people will believe it’s cheaper to build a stronger mailbox for half the cost of heavy duty one? And how do they differ?
We’ve already been through this and I cited a judge on the issue. You haven’t cited anything regarding it in rebuttal.
Because a tree has no agency and no intention, so nothing is its “fault”.
If a mentally competent human being, on the other hand, surreptitiously disguises a concrete block as an ordinary-looking mailbox in order to tempt mailbox-baseball vandals into taking a swing at it because they think it’s as flimsy as it looks, then a jury might well decide that any resulting damage to the vandals is at least partly the mailbox-disguiser’s fault.
You cited A JUDGE’S OPINION ON THE MORAL FRAMEWORK HE BELIEVES UNDERLIES THE LAW. If you don’t comprehend the difference between that and actual legal code or case law history, I can’t help you.
HINT: You wouldn’t be able to cite that article as legal precedent in a court of law.
Yeah, like I said, nobody is blaming the mailbox, which is likewise an inanimate object with no agency and no intention. The person who rigged the deceptively flimsy-looking mailbox, on the other hand…
To take a similar example mentioned previously, if you hide needles in the apples on your apple tree in order to give a nasty surprise to the thieves who’ve been stealing your apples, nobody’s going to blame the apples or the tree in that case.
But you can’t weasel your way out of your own responsibility as the active agent in the boobytrapping by saying “Gosh, Your Honor, the apples and the tree didn’t project themselves in any way! Nobody made the thieves steal the apples, the unfortunate consequences were entirely the result of their own illegal actions!”
There’s nothing deceptive about a heavy duty mailbox. You cannot distinguish it from a lesser quality unit. Calling one built by a homeowner “rigged” means the factory built one is in some way rigged.
biting into an apple is normal use. the needles pose a threat if consumed normally. A well built mailbox poses no such threat if used normally. In fact, based on the videos posted earlier, you can whack them over and over and not injure yourself.
Yes, I cited a judge regarding the issue. You cited… nothing. Basically your logic is that people aren’t responsible for their own actions.
I’m waiting Cheeseteak. Who was charged in your example.
Nobody is talking about a heavy duty mailbox from the store. Those are perfectly fine.
Since his example involved hitting a telephone pole, not a mailbox that was reinforced while intentionally leaving it appearing flimsy, I don’t see how that is relevant.
My claim is that the concept of “Personal Responsibility” is not one that us used by the law. It might very well be taken into account by the legislators who put the law together, or legal minds (including judges) writing articles about what is essentially legal philosophy. But it is not a legal concept used during trial, unlike for example “Reasonable Care”. I’m not sure what you want me to cite, since I can’t prove a negative; but I did link a dictionary of legal concepts which did have an entry for “Reasonable Care” but not for “Personal Responsibility”.
For simplicity purposes let’s call my example “The Only Time In Mailbox Baseball History A Participant Was Injured, When Hitting A Telephone Pole” or TOTIMBHAPWIWHATP
TOTIMBHAPWIWHATP resulted in the driver charged with assault, a passenger charged with assault, and another passenger charged with evidence tampering and hindering prosecution. The 4th passenger is the injured party.
Now that we’re done with that, I feel comfortable in declaring Mailbox Baseball a perfectly safe (if not at all wholesome) activity for young hooligans to try out from time to time.
However, I will happily change my view once you present your evidence that it is generally unsafe (as long as you’re not swinging at something really sturdy, like a telephone pole).
I pretty sure hanging your upper torso out of a moving vehicle is generally considered unsafe no matter what other activities you are engaged in.
This is a strawman. The question others started discussing, based on a TV show, was whether it was legal to disguise an effectively indestructible object as a mailbox in order to bait a person into injuring themselves by playing mailbox baseball. Since the answer there is so clearly, “no,” the discussion evolved into one about whether one could: (1) build a reinforced working mailbox that looks like a flimsy mailbox in order to bait a kid into injuring themselves by playing mailbox baseball (still no), or (2) be liable for building an obviously reinforced mailbox that injures an innocent party (so far, no, in one state, according to the case cited above, but this is a question that could have different answers in different states, with different lawyers, and on slightly different facts).
You say categorically that it is okay to reinforce a mailbox but you are wrong if there is even one time when it would be illegal. If you camouflage your reinforcements with the intent that they cause injury in California, you have clearly violated the statute. Many other times it may leave you liable, possibly even if you had no intent to injure but were grossly negligent in designing your reinforced mailbox such that it caused avoidable injury.
This is a diversion. I will ask you which part of California’s definition of “boobytrap” makes an exception if the action of the unsuspecting person is “unsafe” according to Magiver.
I’ll see myself out because I don’t think there is any value to discussing this with you further…