Matt D From United States, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 55 Posted (3 years 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 528 times:
This is purely hypothetical. It hasn't, to my knowledge, ever happened anywhere. But it came up in a discussion I was having recently. I'd be interested in seeing how you guys interpret it. Remember, this is just a "what if" thought experiment. So there aren't really any right or wrong answers.
Ready?
A homeowner lives in a quiet residential area. In that neighborgood, there are a group of college kids who occasionally like to engage in acts of minor vandalism. One of the things they do is drive up and down the streets, jumping the curb and driving over and knocking down mailboxes.
The aforementioned homeowner one day decides he's tired of having his mailbox knocked over.
So he proceeds to dig a 4 foot deep hole in his front yard. He gets an 8' section of 165 pound per foot railroad rail. He sticks it in the hole (with help of course) and fills it with concrete. After that, he builds a 4 sided wooden frame around the rail (concealing it) and mounts his mailbox on top of it.
A short time later, our previously mentioned college age vandals come driving through at night with the idea of knocking down this mailbox yet again. However, they are not aware of the new way it's been installed.
Upon hitting the now hyper-reinforced mailbox post at 40 mph, the car is brought to an instant stop. The car is now totalled inasmuch as the concrete embedded rail sliced the cars front section in half. Because of the impact force and sudden stop, the vehicles occupants suffer a number of injuries including internal bleeding, broken bones, blunt trauma to the head, and knocked out teeth.
Upon their release from the hospital, the kids who were driving the car proceed to press charges and seek compensatory and punitive damages from the owner of the mailbox, arguing that the super-reinforcment was intented to cause vehicular and bodily harm, exascerbated by the fact that the concrete and steel railk were concealed by wooden frames.
The homewner countersues arguing that had the kids not been engaging in such deliberate and mischieveous conduct and vandalism and not intentionally driven into the mail box (which the owner says he built it because he was tired of having it knocked over), then the wreck and injuries would not have occured.
Quoting Matt D (Thread starter): The homewner countersues arguing that had the kids not been engaging in such deliberate and mischieveous conduct and vandalism and not intentionally driven into the mail box (which the owner says he built it because he was tired of having it knocked over), then the wreck and injuries would not have occured.
Daleaholic From United Kingdom (England), joined Oct 2005, 2915 posts, RR: 18 Reply 2, posted (3 years 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 512 times:
I'd side with the homeowner. That's the problem with justice nowadays, it's the villains who win. If it's on his property... why can't he put in what he wants to teach the frucking yobs a lesson. I wish there was a legal sport called SHOOT THE CHAV. Scum.
Yeh so the homeowner is correct here.
Can't let the scumbags get away with murder.
Religion is an illusion of childhood... Outgrown under proper education.
Jamesbuk From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 3968 posts, RR: 5 Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 502 times:
Surely the homeowner could charge them for Trespassing and criminal damage, and they could be charged with reckless driving unless they can prove it was an accident, Correct?
Rgds --James--
You cant have your cake and eat it... What the hells the point in having it then!!!
NoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 6420 posts, RR: 21 Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 480 times:
Quoting CFCUQ (Reply 6): What is morally correct and what is legally correct are many times 2 different things.
Correct, but in this case I'd side with the homeowner. How he reinforces his mailbox is up to him (as long as he does not use explosives or potentional dangerous things). And the teenagers acted on their own risk. Even knocking down a "normal" mailbox pose a risk to their health.
Bobster2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (3 years 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 480 times:
At the beginning of the trial it would be my intention to follow the law, listen to the evidence and the judge's instructions.
Since I don't know the law, the rest is just guessing. But common sense tells me that a mailbox can be protected by putting it on a flexible base, so it avoids damage to itself and whatever object hits it. Common sense also tells me that an inexpensive piece of property should not be defended with deadly force. My guess is the home owner is guilty. Unless, of course, there is a local law that mailboxes can be constructed that way. How should I know?
Suppose the person who hit the mailbox was forced to swerve off the road in order to avoid hitting a child? Would that change anything? Does the motive of the driver make a difference?
Fr8Mech From United States, joined Sep 2005, 1557 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 470 times:
Quoting CFCUQ (Reply 6): What is morally correct and what is legally correct are many times 2 different things.
So, you feel the homeowner is being immoral in protecting his proprerty from vandals?
To the legal question: I'm going to say that the homeowner would carry some responsibility because he has set a 'trap'. He set the mailbox in a way that is not the norm with what could be shown to be malice towards the vandals. As the property owner he has a legal duty to protect those on his property or warn them of hazards, i.e "Beware of Dog" or "Warning: Electric Fence" signs.
Nighthawk From United Kingdom (Scotland), joined Sep 2001, 4190 posts, RR: 48 Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 466 times:
Quoting CFCUQ (Reply 6): What is morally correct and what is legally correct are many times 2 different things.
That is the key issue here.
Unfortunately im going to have to side with the kids here. The home owner placed that metal rod there with INTENT of causing injury and/or damage to the kids or their vehicle. That is the key issue IMHO, he knew what was going to happen, and did it anyway. As a result he deserves to be prosecuted.
Sure the kids were a menace, but to put their lives in severe danger was going too far, and shows negligence on the homeowners part.
A slightly similar argument happened here in the UK. One night some kids broke into a farm, and tried to rob the house. The farmer opened fire on the kids, killing one of them. He argued self defence, and that the kids shouldnt have been on his property, but he was found guilty and sentenced to jail.
There was no legitimate reason for the home owner to put a metal pole in the ground like that, other than to cause serious harm. He has no defence IMHO.
"Thats why you need people like me in the secret service" Random Drunk. Manchester. 01/08
Go3Team From United States, joined Mar 2004, 3040 posts, RR: 31 Reply 13, posted (3 years 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 449 times:
What if the mailbox was constructed from brick and mortar. My mom hit one on accident years ago, and almost totalled the car. She wasn't going very fast as well. She had to cover the cost of rebuilding the mailbox.
What if the mailbox was stapled to a tree?
The kids would know what they were getting into, if they were to hit something like that.
Either way, commiting a crime, and hurting and/or killing yourself in the process should be the fault of your own, no ifs, ands, or buts.
Vikkyvik From United States, joined Jul 2003, 3764 posts, RR: 25 Reply 14, posted (3 years 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 443 times:
Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 11): Quoting CFCUQ (Reply 6):
What is morally correct and what is legally correct are many times 2 different things.
So, you feel the homeowner is being immoral in protecting his proprerty from vandals?
Where'd you get that from? CFCUQ is absolutely correct, that morality and legality do not always coincide. I was trying to find another example that this situation reminded me of, but I can't find it.
Matt, I wouldn't actually be surprised to find that there are strict codes for building mailboxes, due to their required proximity to roads. But I may be wrong.
Otherwise, though, I'd say it's definitely the kids' fault.
The spirit of Massachusetts is the spirit of America!
HatTrick From United States, joined Nov 2005, 110 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (3 years 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 425 times:
Quoting Matt D (Thread starter): arguing that the super-reinforcment was intented to cause vehicular and bodily harm, exascerbated by the fact that the concrete and steel railk were concealed by wooden frames.
No more than a large tree, a bridge abutment or those U.S Postal mailboxs on every other street corner for that matter.
The homeowners mailbox only became an issue when they chose to drive onto his private property and into it. Regardless of what it's outward appearance may have implied.
Reckless driving and destruction of personal property should be the charges against the students.
Itsjustme From United States, joined Apr 2004, 2587 posts, RR: 13 Reply 16, posted (3 years 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 398 times:
Quoting HatTrick (Reply 15): Reckless driving and destruction of personal property should be the charges against the students.
Agreed, but you are confusing criminal charges with a civil suit.
Given the history of civil courts and juries in the U.S. handing out some ridiculous settlements to plaintiffs (http://www.stellaawards.com/), it would not surprise me in the least, if this case were presented, if the court found in favor of the students. However, if I were judge and jury, I would find in favor of the home owner. I'd also make the students pay for the repair of whatever damages were incurred to the homeowners property (torn up grass, etc...).
JetsGo From United States, joined Jul 2003, 2240 posts, RR: 3 Reply 17, posted (3 years 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 371 times:
This all is quite ironic because my father was placed in a near identical situation quite a while ago.
Back in January of 2000, my father was constructing a pool at his house. Around the same time, there were some punks in the neighborhood who liked to drive around knocking over trash cans with their cars. As you can imagine, peoples trash would go everywhere and the wind would pick it up and blow it even further. Anyway, my father was tired of this. He and the neighbors had called the police many times before, but they never really took any of it seriously. Well one night he decided he had enough. Next trash day, he loaded up the trash can with several 50-100lb boulders. There were probably 10 or so in there. Well, sure as shit, the punks came by that night and lucky for them, they chose his house as a target. At around 2:30am, my father woke up to a a crash-like noise outside. The kids had hit his can and completely totaled their Pontiac Grand Prix. Of the 4 kids, 3 of them had to be rushed to the hospital. The fourth walked away. All survived, but one had to have is leg amputated below the knee.
Once they were out, they wanted to sue my father something like intent to cause bodily injury, on four counts. Well, my father, armed with previous police reports, video surveillance from previous nights, and of the accident itself, won the case. My father walked out, and apparently the judge told the punks they are lucky to both be alive, and not to be in jail for their actions. I believe they learned their lessons.
Idiots.
The case actually made the local news for a while. I remember finding a link to it but can't seem to find it anymore. It was under the search: Abbott vs. Ammatuna.
AsstChiefMark From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (3 years 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 352 times:
If I were a lawyer, I'd be thinking...
Does the mailbox conform to the design outlined in USPS Manual D041?
Is the mailbox mounted in accordance with US Postal Service placement recommendations?
Is the mailbox mounted in accordance with any state laws and local ordinances?
Are curbside mailbox posts, which are usually mounted on municipally-owned right-of-way property, required by local ordinances to meet the same break-away safety standards as road signs?
Is the mailbox mounted in accordance to recommendations outlined in A Guide For Erecting Mailboxes on Highways, which was published in 1994 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials for the Task Force for Roadside Safety of the Standing Committee on Highways Subcommittee on Design?
Does the design, installation, and appearance of the mailbox and/or mounting post indicate the presence of malicious intent to cause personal injury and/or property damage?
Does the design of the post mounting system indicate a conscientious attempt to minimize the extent of injury and damage in the event of a traffic crash?
Here's what I'd do.
1. Mount the rail in coarse sand rather than concrete.
2. Leave the rail exposed for a month or two so the vandals can see what they'd be hitting. Then install the wood facade.
3. Drill "break-away" holes in the rail about 6" above ground level.
They'll still cause serious, disabling damage to their car and may escape with minor or no injury. The homeowner's liability may be greatly reduced due to the use of sand and a break-away system.
Itsjustme From United States, joined Apr 2004, 2587 posts, RR: 13 Reply 19, posted (3 years 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 349 times:
Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 18): They'll still cause serious, disabling damage to their car and may escape with minor or no injury. The homeowner's liability may be greatly reduced due to the use of sand and a break-away system.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, 
.gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Oct 2005, 2915 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Jul 2006, 1433 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 3968 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Canada, joined Sep 2005, 707 posts, 
From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 6420 posts, 
.gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (Scotland), joined Sep 2001, 4190 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
