# You are liable if a car crashes into a boulder on your property? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 17, 2012, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-are-liable-if-a-car-crashes-into-a-boulder-on-your-property/622233 "2012-05-17T18:11:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![TruCelt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/trucelt/32/523_2.png) [@TruCelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TruCelt)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2012, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-are-liable-if-a-car-crashes-into-a-boulder-on-your-property/622233/81 "2012-05-19T15:07:23Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > McD’s point was that proper coffee required very hot water to make. They knew it caused problems, yes, but there was no solution they were willing to accept, except to pay out when they had no choice. As others have pointed out, a cup at 160F is still dangerous. Would you expect McD’s to serve cold hamburgers, for example, if that’s what was needed to avoid mouth burns? (I know they do with their Freedom Fries) No. There was no discussion of “better” flavor, only “enough” flavor while saving 3-4 tablespoons of coffee grounds per pot. It was pure cost savings in the memos. I have no access to what the testimony was. I do agree that a guard rail is the best possible solution here, and I can’t help thinking that the local Gov is trying to pressure them to give up the property. It just doesn’t seem reasonable that anyone capable of designing a bridge didn’t also foresee this problem. I get that a guard rail in the current configuration would block the driveway, but surely some solution must have been put forward?!? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2012, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-are-liable-if-a-car-crashes-into-a-boulder-on-your-property/622233/82 "2012-05-19T15:35:04Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > It brings me back to something I’ve already said. I can name several local government buildings that are near roadways and are protected by large bollards. These bollards would violate the setback requirement of virtually any privately owned structure, and serve no purpose other than to provide maximum stopping power against an oncoming vehicle. > > I can also name many businesses in my area that have concrete pillars or etc in parking lots or in store fronts, sometimes literally touching the road. It isn’t the most common thing ever, but if your search your recollections you can probably imagine a few businesses you’ve seen like this. > > I agree in general, most places it is not going to be legal to move an enormous boulder to your property line. But there are obviously legal scenarios under which you can have extremely dangerous (to traffic) barriers right at the property line. ISTM that if the city put the bridge there, then it is the city’s responsibility to ensure that the homeowner is not adversely affected by irresponsible drivers. Thus the city should provide a safety barrier. The homeowners should sue the city to install concrete bollards in front of their property. Since this would be a safety measure by the city, there would be no issue with easements and any liability for injuries would be upon the city. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2012, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-are-liable-if-a-car-crashes-into-a-boulder-on-your-property/622233/83 "2012-05-19T16:22:45Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > How about Section 804c of the [Bath Township [OH] Development Zoning Resolution](http://www.bathtownship.org/Zoning%20folder/Bath%20Township%20Development%20Standards%2010-2011.pdf)? > I trust you don’t need a cite for the fairly obvious statement that noncompliance with zoning ordinances is illegal? > > As for the liability issue, some widely distributed [legal boilerplate about risks of property ownership](property owner zoning violation liability injury) includes the following advice: > Putting up a big honking boulder right at the edge of a road in violation of setback requirements is indisputably both failing to maintain your property in compliance with zoning ordinances and creating a condition that might cause injury to someone’s property or person. > > I’m stunned that so many posters seem so unwilling to believe that such a thing could get you in trouble. You fail to consider the difference between protecting life and property and decorative use of an object. You do agree that there’s a difference don’t you? Would a guard rail placed by a curve to keep drivers from driving through home be in violation, or should the owner construct the guard rail 5 feet back too? I’m sure you see the distinction here and understand why it’s difficult for lay people to answer legal questions accurately. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2012, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-are-liable-if-a-car-crashes-into-a-boulder-on-your-property/622233/84 "2012-05-19T18:04:46Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > You fail to consider the difference between protecting life and property and decorative use of an object. You do agree that there’s a difference don’t you? Would a guard rail placed by a curve to keep drivers from driving through home be in violation, or should the owner construct the guard rail 5 feet back too? I don’t know what the rules are for constructing guard rails on unsafe roads (and I definitely agree with many others such as **TruCelt** and **Johnny L.A.** who say that the municipality should install one in this case), but I’m willing to bet that they’re different from the rules for installing huge boulders on the edge of one’s property. > [@Morgenstern](#): > > I’m sure you see the distinction here and understand why it’s difficult for lay people to answer legal questions accurately. It’s not difficult even for a layperson to see that a huge boulder and a guard rail are not the same thing, and that declaring you want a huge boulder to serve the same function as a guard rail does not necessarily make them the same thing in the eyes of the law. The homeowner in the article was quoted as saying that she had been advised that placing a huge boulder on the edge of her property without obtaining any kind of special permission for it could make her liable for damages if a car crashed into the boulder—a statement that was greeted with disbelief or confusion by several posters here, who seem to assume that any sort of defensive action to prevent others from irresponsibly harming you or your property must be fair game. All I’ve been doing is pointing out that yes, that sort of defensive action **CAN** get you in trouble legally (and not without reason), and so far nobody has provided any evidence to the contrary. The general principle here, which is comprehensible even to a layperson, is that _you are not automatically allowed to do whatever you like with your property without regard for legal regulations or reasonable concern for others’ safety, even if your motive is merely to keep others from damaging your property._ ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2012, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-are-liable-if-a-car-crashes-into-a-boulder-on-your-property/622233/85 "2012-05-19T18:24:22Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Yeah. It’s like if I’m constantly being run into while walking on the sidewalk by bicyclists illegally and carelessly riding on the sidewalk, I’m still not allowed to enclose myself in a portable cage of pointy spikes to impale the bicyclists before they can hit me. > > Obstacles that have no other purpose except to cause dangerous impacts, even if they’re only used to obstruct people who are illegally heading toward a **different** dangerous impact, fall into the category of booby traps. Booby traps are generally illegal (and dangerous) even if they’re non-maliciously meant to discourage illegal and dangerous acts by others. > > If the road safety is egregiously bad enough, I would think the homeowners in this case would have a good case for suing the town. We’re not talking about bicycles, we’re talking about cars. The purpose of the boulder is to protect the homeowner physically from being struck and killed by a car. While there may be some legal precedent regarding a boolder at the end of a property line I think the case can be made for ensuring the safety of the occupants of a house. Otherwise a well built house would constitute the same hazard to drivers. In this case, a boulder close to the house would act as part of the structural integrity of the house itself. That aside, I think the city could be compelled to install a guard rail given the history of the area in question. ---
**Author:** ![ZenBeam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/3ab097/32.png) [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2012, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-are-liable-if-a-car-crashes-into-a-boulder-on-your-property/622233/86 "2012-05-19T18:43:59Z")
An issue with the boulder is that it is a boulder for cars traveling in all directions. It will protect the homeowner from a car coming from the bridge, that would otherwise hit the house. Cars traveling along the road, however, which would otherwise miss the house, can still hit the boulder. (On the other hand, I’ll note here that in the street view, the home owner _does_ have some boulders, to the left of the front stoop. But maybe they were there before the road was widened.) A _properly designed and installed_ guard rail (i.e., not just something the homeowner whips up himself) would take into account traffic traveling along the road. I agree the city should be taking responsibility here. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2012, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-are-liable-if-a-car-crashes-into-a-boulder-on-your-property/622233/87 "2012-05-19T18:45:05Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The purpose of the boulder is to protect the homeowner physically from being struck and killed by a car. And to protect the homeowner’s property from being damaged by a car. Yes. We get that. > [@Magiver](#): > > While there may be some legal precedent regarding a boolder at the end of a property line I think the case can be made for ensuring the safety of the occupants of a house. Otherwise a well built house would constitute the same hazard to drivers. In this case, a boulder close to the house would act as part of the structural integrity of the house itself. :dubious: See the general principle articulated in my previous post. I definitely can see how the homeowners would have a strong case for getting permission from the town to erect some kind of defensive barrier or attenuator, like the hedges and planters that other posters have described as used in similar situations. But I’m not convinced that just independently installing a huge boulder right on their property edge would be seen as equivalent to that in terms of legality or liability. And no, it doesn’t really seem likely that a house set back several feet from the road would actually “constitute the same hazard to drivers” as a huge boulder set right at the edge of the road. > [@Magiver](#): > > That aside, I think the city could be compelled to install a guard rail given the history of the area in question. I think everybody here agrees that that would be a good idea. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2012, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-are-liable-if-a-car-crashes-into-a-boulder-on-your-property/622233/88 "2012-05-19T18:57:00Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > And no, it doesn’t really seem likely that a house set back several feet from the road would actually “constitute the same hazard to drivers” as a huge boulder set right at the edge of the road. A person in a car is protected by a structure specifically designed for impact using at least 3 layers of protection (seat belt, air bag, and steel frame crush zone). Houses are not designed for 2 ton missiles. If I were the homeowner I’d rebuild the house with a higher foundation wall of rebar reinforced concrete. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2012, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-are-liable-if-a-car-crashes-into-a-boulder-on-your-property/622233/89 "2012-05-19T19:25:36Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > If I were the homeowner I’d rebuild the house with a higher foundation wall of rebar reinforced concrete. Sounds pretty expensive and time-consuming, not to mention that it would still do nothing to prevent collision damage to the house siding or other external features, or to the homeowner’s garage and car(s) in the driveway. If I were the homeowner I’d seek permission from the town to put up some kind of recommended danger-mitigating barrier/attenuator like a guard rail or racetrack-style straw bales, as well as loudly and persistently requesting the town to install an official guard rail on the road. Of course, this wouldn’t provide the satisfaction of seeing rogue drivers go splat against a very large solid object, which seems to be what some people are secretly hankering after. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2012, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-are-liable-if-a-car-crashes-into-a-boulder-on-your-property/622233/90 "2012-05-19T20:21:45Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Sounds pretty expensive and time-consuming, not to mention that it would still do nothing to prevent collision damage to the house siding or other external features, or to the homeowner’s garage and car(s) in the driveway. > > If I were the homeowner I’d seek permission from the town to put up some kind of recommended danger-mitigating barrier/attenuator like a guard rail or racetrack-style straw bales, as well as loudly and persistently requesting the town to install an official guard rail on the road. agreed > [@Kimstu](#): > > Of course, this wouldn’t provide the satisfaction of seeing rogue drivers go splat against a very large solid object, which seems to be what some people are secretly hankering after. Not sure where this is coming from. I’m thinking about a car coming into my living room. Hitting a solid object at 35 mph is nothing in a car. It’s designed to protect the occupant. Not so with a house. It’s made of framing studs, drywall and insulation. It’s designed to keep rain and extreme temperatures out. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2012, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-are-liable-if-a-car-crashes-into-a-boulder-on-your-property/622233/91 "2012-05-20T01:10:00Z")
> [@Inigo\_Montoya](#): > > A boulder set between the road and a house that’s been hit by cars 4 times is there to be between the reckless driver and the stationary house that was built properly according to code and zoning laws. A spring gun, land mines, and bamboo pits are there to be “between” an intruder and my home. It still doesn’t keep a homeowner free from liability for having those things. As a homeowner, you know damn well (since the house has been hit 4 times) that the boulder will seriously injure occupants of cars that accidentally run off of the road, and you also know that cars frequently run off of the road at this location. That makes you willful, wanton, and reckless. ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2012, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-are-liable-if-a-car-crashes-into-a-boulder-on-your-property/622233/92 "2012-05-20T03:33:35Z")
> [@Gedd](#): > > What if a car hit’s your mailbox? Many mailboxes are right at the edge of the road; one could argue dangerously so. A car could jump the curb a little bit and (depending on your mailbox) suffer quite a bit of damage. I’ve seen ones that are mounted in a brick pillar that could stop a car dead. One of my coworkers was a masonist (masoner? Ahh, the Internet says the word I want is simply "mason). Anyways, one of my coworkers was a mason in a previous life (before he became a cubicle dweller like myself). He says that when they were doing house construction projects, they would often have a smallish surplus of bricks left over (having previously accounted for things like material damaged or stolen during construction). Typically what they would do is use the bricks to build a fashionable little roadside mailbox. Not always solid, sometimes the only brick part was the exterior, with the interior being of lighter construction. That said, the local laws evidently changed to where such mailboxes were considered a hazard, and only the easily knocked down kind were allowed. No idea where that was though. Now, the Air Force has taught me that anyone and anything wearing a reflective belt is impervious to automobiles, so my advise to the homeowners is to try wrapping their house in reflective belts. Barring that being practical, I would suggest (as others have already) that the city should be responsible for mitigating this somehow. Most obvious solution would be to put in a speed bump before the curve to force drivers to stop pretending they’re Jason Statham. ---
**Author:** ![TruCelt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/trucelt/32/523_2.png) [@TruCelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TruCelt)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2012, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-are-liable-if-a-car-crashes-into-a-boulder-on-your-property/622233/93 "2012-05-20T13:21:57Z")
Discussing this around the table yesterday, a friend pointed out that the city’s priority may be access by emergency vehicles. Any solution which prevents fire/rescue vehicles from getting close enough to the house to be of maximum service would be automatically rejected. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2012, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-are-liable-if-a-car-crashes-into-a-boulder-on-your-property/622233/94 "2012-05-20T14:27:50Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > The house has a right to be placed there while the boulder does not. I’m wording that badly, but that’s how it was explained to me by a lawyer once. Your house is an integral part of the property, so anyone who jumps the curb and hits the house will just have to suck it up. But if the landowner moves a boulder into a position it didn’t naturally lay in, they become potentially liable for damage when said lousy driver hits it. Well that’s fucking retarded. Unless the boulder is one hell of a load stone, it didn’t pull the car off the street. The driver did that. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2012, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-are-liable-if-a-car-crashes-into-a-boulder-on-your-property/622233/95 "2012-05-20T14:42:09Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > The house or the car, as others have said, are there for the purposes of living and driving, respectively. The sole purpose of the boulder is to injure. Cite? It looks to me like they’re trying to protect themselves and their property. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2012, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-are-liable-if-a-car-crashes-into-a-boulder-on-your-property/622233/96 "2012-05-20T14:50:17Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > If you fail to maintain your property or knowingly create a condition on your property that causes injury to someone’s property or person without taking steps to eliminate the hazard\*\* or provide a proper warning;\*\* you could be determined to be negligent and thus responsible for the harms and injuries that result of your negligence. To reduce your exposure to risk from owning real property, you have an affirmative obligation to maintain your property so as not to cause harm or injury to others. > > I’m stunned that so many posters seem so unwilling to believe that such a thing could get you in trouble. Added bolding. So as long as they put up a sign that says: “Boulder is made out of boulder. Do not hit it.”. They’re fine? I could get behind that. ---
**Author:** ![StarvingButStrong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/starvingbutstrong/32/335_2.png) [@StarvingButStrong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StarvingButStrong)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2012, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-are-liable-if-a-car-crashes-into-a-boulder-on-your-property/622233/97 "2012-05-20T15:19:08Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Added bolding. > > So as long as they put up a sign that says: “Boulder is made out of boulder. Do not hit it.”. They’re fine? > > I could get behind that. This reminds me – In Burlington, MA there’s a Burger King where they had to dig back into a hill to create the parking lot. As a result, one side of it ends with a wall, at least 8-10’ tall, that stetches maybe 50 feet. The wall is poured concrete, the usual light gray color. And stenciled the length of it, at about the eye level of a driver sitting in his car, is a string of “Caution: Wall” stenciled every few feet in yellow letters maybe 4" tall. I assume this was a required warning, but it shows just how stupidly inflexible the law must be. C’mon, drivers will somehow not notice the 8’ X 50’ barrier of solid concrete, but they WILL notice letters maybe 4" tall in yellow against medium gray??? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2012, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-are-liable-if-a-car-crashes-into-a-boulder-on-your-property/622233/98 "2012-05-20T15:26:34Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Well that’s fucking retarded. Unless the boulder is one hell of a load stone, it didn’t pull the car off the street. The driver did that. If I built a moat around my house and fill it with alligators, and a prowler gets eaten, would you argue in my defense that the alligator didn’t force him to trespass on my property? To answer your other question, you are correct. The primary purpose of the boulder is protection of the house, but a landowner should know that since cars have hit there many times before that placing a large boulder in that position can and will cause serious injury. That’s willful, wanton, and reckless in the same ballpark as an alligator filled moat. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2012, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-are-liable-if-a-car-crashes-into-a-boulder-on-your-property/622233/99 "2012-05-20T15:46:30Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > If I built a moat around my house and fill it with alligators, and a prowler gets eaten, would you argue in my defense that the alligator didn’t force him to trespass on my property? > > To answer your other question, you are correct. The primary purpose of the boulder is protection of the house, but a landowner should know that since cars have hit there many times before that placing a large boulder in that position can and will cause serious injury. That’s willful, wanton, and reckless in the same ballpark as an alligator filled moat. Your mixing issues. Alligators, I believe, are controlled. However moats are cool. I would argue for your right to have a moat, even if they were uncool. So long as it was either plainly obvious, or you put up visible and obvious warning signs. I would not argue for your right to put alligators in it because they may not stay down in there, and it would be cruel to them. Further I would not argue for spike pit traps because I do not disagree with your premise that something meant to only injure is bad. However a boulder is a big fucking rock. It’s not a alligator pit. It’s a big fucking rock. Its mere presence is a warning that it is there. You should be watching where you’re going, and if you hit the big fucking rock, that’s all your fault. Good driving is not driving faster than you can see a head. Don’t out run your headlights, slow down for blind curves, and stay on the road. Always be alert for things that could make you lose control of the auto, and be going a safe speed to be able negate these things. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2012, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-are-liable-if-a-car-crashes-into-a-boulder-on-your-property/622233/100 "2012-05-20T15:59:49Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Your mixing issues. Alligators, I believe, are controlled. However moats are cool. I would argue for your right to have a moat, even if they were uncool. So long as it was either plainly obvious, or you put up visible and obvious warning signs. > I would not argue for your right to put alligators in it because they may not stay down in there, and it would be cruel to them. Further I would not argue for spike pit traps because I do not disagree with your premise that something meant to only injure is bad. > > However a boulder is a big fucking rock. It’s not a alligator pit. It’s a big fucking rock. Its mere presence is a warning that it is there. You should be watching where you’re going, and if you hit the big fucking rock, that’s all your fault. Good driving is not driving faster than you can see a head. Don’t out run your headlights, slow down for blind curves, and stay on the road. Always be alert for things that could make you lose control of the auto, and be going a safe speed to be able negate these things. First, the warning signs would be worthless. We both know that these cars are accidentally entering the property. At the last tenth of a second before impact a huge “Warning: Boulder” sign would be worthless. I agree with what you said about proper driving, but this thread is looking at it from the landowner’s perspective for liability. As a landowner (especially this landowner) you know that a significant number of people do not drive properly and follow the safety instructions you outlined. Since you KNOW this, that determines the duty you owe to these people should they enter your property. Thankfully most states still say a landowner owes a very limited duty to a trespasser. If you carelessly parked your lawn mower, let’s say, outside one night and a car hit that, then you would most likely be in the clear because you don’t owe a duty to a trespasser to keep your property in ship-shape for them like you would a business guest. But you can’t do things which you know are likely to cause harm. Yes, it’s their fucking fault for coming onto your property, but you KNOW that your placement of a boulder in that location will cause them harm. That’s why you put it there…to protect your home causing injury to auto occupants. I don’t see the functional difference from a spike pit to a boulder in a particular location. Yes, the primary purpose is home protection, but either one would cause injury as a method of enforcing that protection. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-are-liable-if-a-car-crashes-into-a-boulder-on-your-property/622233.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-are-liable-if-a-car-crashes-into-a-boulder-on-your-property/622233.md?page=6)