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?!?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And to protect the homeowner’s property from being damaged by a car. Yes. We get that.
: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.
I think everybody here agrees that that would be a good idea.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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???
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.
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.