Not to mention using an apostrophe to pluralize it.
I’m surprised that the Snowman hasn’t been mentioned.
True, it’s not a mailbox, but should the homeowner be responsible for any damages?
It was not a “man trap.” It was not there to cause injury to an unsuspecting person. It was not designed to cause injury in any circumstance. It was designed to resist damage, and the owner made a good-faith effort to ensure it did not violate any statutes. This was not a shotgun aimed at the front door.
Suppose I put a sign on it saying “Hitting me with a bat may cause injury or even death.”
I believe this is incorrect, and the reference is in fact to the infamous Katko versus Briney case, which involved a shotgun booby trap attached to— nothing on a public street — a bedroom door located inside a boarded-up abandoned house with “No Trespassing” signs posted all around the property. Katko sued Briney subsequent to his injuries; Briney was held liable for illegally setting a deadly trap and paid $20000 in actual damages and $10000 in punitive damages.
ETA the obvious low-grade rhetoric of vilipending the victims as “punk teenagers” and/or “gypsies” (!) in such cases is, as hardly needs pointing out, not legally relevant.
I’ll agree that @Saint_Cad’s guess as to what @Chickenwrangler was talking about is probably not correct. But,
Is also not the case that @Chickenwrangler was referring to, as it is not set in the UK, and they specifically said that it is similar to, but was not the Katko v Brinley case.
I am curious as to what case @Chickenwrangler was referring to, as many times, the popular misconceptions as to the details of a case like that are wildly inaccurate.
I stand corrected : R. v Martin then
That sounds much closer, although if that is the case, @Chickenwrangler had quite a number of the details wrong.
Not too surprising, often these types of cases get quite a bit of “telephone” treatment. I’d say that that is what @Chickenwrangler was referring to, just that they misremembered most of the details.
Wiki of the case:
Notable differences from @Chickenwrangler 's synopsis are that Martin was paranoid (a fact which got his life sentence for murder successfully appealed later) and police cannot confirm that all of the incidents where he was “fed up with being burgled” in fact took place. In any case, he had a paranoid personality disorder directed at intruders, and had shot at an apple thief before. The incident in question was also not a shotgun trap, rather he was accused of lying in wait for the burglars and opening fire at close range without warning.
It is true that the surviving burglar later sued him for loss of earnings, but that was apparently bogus and the case was at any rate dropped.
I forgot to mention that I did find that wiki page.
Another thing that @Chickenwrangler’s synopsis left out was that Martin actually killed one of the intruders.
And yes, the bemoaning of these thieves profiting at the expense of the homeowner was entirely based on false premises.
In Texas you can do both.
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section [9.41]; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
And just below that it looks like I can install my super duper mailbox post as long I figure it was reasonable when I put it in, I wasn’t trying to kill some one, and didn’t figure someone would get killed on it.
Sec. 9.44. USE OF DEVICE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. The justification afforded by Sections [9.41]and [9.43]applies to the use of a device to protect land or tangible, movable property if:
(1) the device is not designed to cause, or known by the actor to create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury; and
(2) use of the device is reasonable under all the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be when he installs the device.
Every state has different laws as to the duty owed by landowners. Most states go by the common law rule that the only duty owed to trespassers is that one not be willful, wanton, or reckless. Close to intent, but not quite. In any event, a concrete filled mailbox would be willful, wanton, and reckless because there is no purpose other than to harm a would be trespasser.
The larger issue that I have with this ruling is mentioned above. There is no such thing as an “unintentional trespass.” If there is no intent to cross the land, there is no trespass. Someone else mentioned planting oak trees, but that is an ordinary and customary use of land. A viper pit or a concrete filled mailbox is not.
So in my off the cuff opinion, based on the facts as presented, the landowner is liable even if the motorist was a trespasser and especially because he was not.
A viper pit would be pretty unusual, but solid and/or unconventional mailbox designs are somewhat common. For example, here’s a large dragon mailbox made from steel that could easily be fatal if someone ran into it:
Not everyone has this kind of mailbox, but non-traditional mailboxes are common enough that it they should be considered expected.
But I would think that there should be breakaway requirements for structures in the ROW, like mailboxes. Poles and signposts are typically put on breakaway bases so that they fall over if they are hit by a car. Standard mailboxes are flimsy enough to fall away and brick mailboxes are typically easy to push over. If someone mounts their mailbox on a solid steel column in the ROW that doesn’t breakaway, it seems like that should violate some kind of law. I found this example of breakaway requirements:
I think the issue with this type of mailbox, for a potential plaintiff, is that it would be “open and obvious.” No carload of teenagers are going to take a swing at this with a metal baseball bat.
Also, if you live up a country hollow, there is little danger of people sliding on black ice into it. But if you live on the side of a highway where it is foreseeable that people can have accidents, then maybe you should get yourself a regular mailbox to protect against liability.
I believe you are incorrect in that the case I cited is not related to your case in that Smith was at home and lying in wait. Look to your own cite.
The Court ruled that using deadly force on intruders in an unoccupied property was not reasonable or justified. Briney would have been justified in defending himself with the shotgun if he had been home during the intrusion. [Emphasis added]
Apologies to all with getting some details wrong in the case of a householder shooting an intruder.
It was some years ago and I was out of the country at the time so did not get many of the follow up details concerning the case.
The thing that stuck with me was the the householder who was only protecting his property ends up in jail and paying compensation to the burglar who should not have been in his house at all.
I am a bit old fashioned in that I do believe one’s home should be his castle and one’s family should feel safe when “at home”
But times move on and criminals get better free representation in an attempt to justify their behavior against the good guys who have to pay for their own legal costs.
As regard the word “Gypsy” It’s difficult to keep up with the rapid changing acceptable and appropriate terms these days.
In my day Gypsy was a figure of mystery and romance, there were songs written and movies made about the romantic life on the Gypsy road.
What happened to change that?
Rhetorical question
Sounds right— Briney had set up a deadly booby-trap, while in the other two cases the defendants lay in wait themselves and murdered the intruders (and were not found have used “reasonable force” in self-defense)
It’s not that anyone attempted to justify the intruders’ behaviour and it is a bit misleading to view it that way. What the jury found was that the farmer did not use “reasonable force” to protect himself and his property.
Also there was no compensation paid.
Sure, but that doesn’t mean that the householder has carte blanche to repel invaders as violently as he wants. I’m not condoning the crime of burglary, I just don’t think it should be considered a capital crime punishable by immediate extrajudicial execution.
Similarly, I’m opposed to the crime of sexual assault and gropers feeling up women in public places. But that doesn’t mean I think that a woman whose bottom is pinched by a groper in a crowded subway is entitled to slit his throat with a knife in consequence. (Although I might personally feel somewhat sympathetic to a woman who did respond so excessively violently, rationally speaking there’s no question in my mind that such violence would be excessive.)
Yeah, now people brag about having Gypsy blood.
Now, OTOH, dont use the term “to gyp someone out of it”. That is derogatory.
Unfortunately, in the example given, the “good guy” crossed over the line and exhibited criminal behavior.