Back in 1974 a farmer stopped by to talk with my dad. The farmer was kinda wacky, so I was eavesdropping on the conversation.
The farmer was pissed off big time. His farmhouse sat about 1/2 mile back from the back-road where his mailbox was situated. Kids had destroyed his mailbox, so he replaced it. The very next day they were back and destroyed the new box and pole. He had just finished replacing the box and pole again, but also built a blind in the woods so he could observe the mailbox.
I later learned that he sat in his blind three nights in a row with no luck. On the fourth night a car stopped and two guys with baseball bats got out. The farmer began shooting. The kids thought he was shooting at them, and ran. He continued shooting, hitting the tires and all the glass, along with the engine.
The kids (18 year olds) made it home and told their parents what had happened. The parents called the local police. The farmer’s wife, when questioned, said she and her husband were in bed all night. There were never any arrests.
Wait. Why is the bank allowed to put ink bombs in their moneybags? Aren’t moneybags just another example of attractive nuisances? If not, why is my mailbox considered one? Neither object is truly inviting being messed with.
One thing that could make the homeowner liable is if he made the super-strong mailbox to teach the criminals a lesson. If he made a super-fortified mailbox but made it look flimsy on purpose so it’s enticing for the kids to hit, then he may be liable. If instead it was obvious that the mailbox was fortified then he would be in the clear. If the kids hit a mailbox that looks like it’s made from solid steel, then they took the swing with the knowledge that the mailbox would not move. But if instead the mailbox appears to be a light, flimsy mailbox like all the others, then the fortification is more designed to inflict injury to the kids rather than just part of the mailbox design.
yes, the sign might make a difference but in a way that you would not expect - it indicates that you know beforehand that what you are putting up is dangerous and exposes you to more potential liability.
The best mailbox supports are stable but bend or fall away if a car hits them. The Federal Highway Administration recommends:
A 4″ x 4″ wooden support or a 2″-diameter standard steel or aluminum pipe.
Avoid unyielding and potentially dangerous supports, like heavy metal pipes, concrete posts, and farm equipment (e.g., milk cans filled with concrete).
Mailbox posts shall not be set in concrete unless the design has been shown to meet VDOT breakaway standards.
&
Non‐conforming Structures
Non‐conforming mailbox structures may remain in‐place under the auspices of a VDOT land use permit. Submittal of a land use permit application does not guarantee approval.
Non‐conforming mailbox structures located on a curb and gutter street with a speed limit of 25 MPH shall be located no closer than 18” from the face of curb.
Non‐conforming mailbox structures located on a shoulder and ditch street shall be located beyond the clear zone or 10’ from the edge of pavement, whichever is greater.
Mailbox structures deemed as a safety hazard should be removed immediately from the highway right‐of‐way.
Looks to me that, at least where I am, mailbox traps are allowed in certain circumstances.
Those are not “traps”. They are very sturdy working mailboxes. Which can be allowed in some areas.
Going back to the case- the homeowner took in his regular mailbox at night, and replaced with a mailbox that could not function as one, but was intended as a trap. IIRC he admitted this. And it looked identical to the regular mailbox.
Now yes, the result is the same. Kid hits with ballbat, arm is hurt, box is safe. However, the intent is totally different, and in most cases the box looks different, which may serve as a warning.
One undisputed fact is that the mailbox was not in the right-of-way. The plaintiff’s position was that the homeowner could reasonably expect a vehicle to leave the right-of-way, cross into private property, and hit the mailbox, which posed a hazard under such circumstances. The defendant’s position is basically “fuck you.”
In the instant case (the actual case involving a driver hitting a mailbox accidentally), the outcome may depend in part (or even wholly) on what kind of duty a property owner owes a trespasser, keeping in mind “trespasser” would likely encompass unintentional trespass too, not just intentional/criminal trespass.
Some jurisdictions say that a property owner’s only duty to a trespasser is to not act maliciously to cause them harm. Others would say a property owner owes everyone on their property a duty of reasonable care, with what exactly is “reasonable” depending in part of foreseeability.
I really don’t understand this ruling. This seems to imply that a homeowner could install a phalanx of tank traps alongside the road and not be liable for any injury that occurs to a driver in a accident. Whether his mailbox was vandalized or not should have no bearing at all on the incredibly obvious and predictable hazard he placed alongside the roadway.
Perhaps he owns the land, and perhaps there’s no easement or law which would place restrictions on what he’s allowed to build in that location, but nonetheless…his property is serviced by that road. The road is community property and everyone on it is entitled to a reasonable expectation of safety both on the road and in in the unfortunate case when you leave the road.
This mailbox is effectively a man-trap. He didn’t trap his intended target with it, which is precisely why man-traps are outlawed. Calling the driver leaving the road “trespassing” is about the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard. Victim blaming is an epidemic apparently.
IANAL but a cursory search seems to indicate that trespass explicitly requires intent. To quote Wikipedia, “For example, a person walking in a public park who trips and rolls down a hill will not be liable for trespass just because the bottom of the hill is on private land.” Perhaps some jurisdictions have weird case law on that point, but I think in this case the defense attorney is being willfully misleading in his use of language.
Is the homeowner entitled to the same reasonable expectation of safety in their home and on their property? There is a house in my neighborhood that I’m amazed hasn’t been destroyed at the bottom of a hill is a sharp curve in the road and if you missed that turn you’re 20’ from his house and about 5’ above his roof. If my neighbor built bollards along his property to prevent his home from being destroyed is he in the wrong?
What if our would be mailbox defender build a bollard to set his mailbox on? How are you going to define the line between keeping your property safe and risking people who are already doing something unsafely (driving too fast for conditions or swinging a bat from a car)
There are most certainly a lot of places in the world where lax zoning and surveying have put roads and homes into a perilous opposition. That’s not a justification for creating a trap like in this case. Where I’ve seen similar problems like you describe the county or city usually installs a guardrail that’s built to keep cars on the roadway but to also crumple and catch them with some degree of safety. There’s a reason why we have regulations and the city or county is expected to make accommodations, as opposed to vigilante bullshit like this.
