I’d be surprised if there were any legal consequences for something like this. It’s not a “booby trap” in the traditional sense where it poses a danger to legitimate visitors or emergency responders entering a property. It is a solid structure inside another (seemingly less solid) structure. You should already not be trying to ram into it. It poses zero risk to anyone that doesn’t already intent to maliciously destroy the apparently less solid structure.
we have issues in the UK with something like this. if you pay road tax you can park anywhere that isn’t parking controlled, including outside peoples houses (so long as you’re not restricting their access to the highway). some homeowners started putting traffic cones out to “reserve” the spot outside their homes (you cant legally do this btw).
People would just push them out of the way with their cars so homeowners started filling them with concrete.
Putting one of those in the road absolutely can and does get you in trouble
The post itself is just clickbait, but legal consequences are not all that clear. It’s honestly mostly about intent.
Here’s a case where a guy’s mailbox kept getting run over so he rebuilt it with a railroad tie and an 8" pipe burried 3 ft in the ground packed with concrete, and the guy who smashed it destroyed his car and paralyzed himself. https://www.courtnewsohio.gov/cases/2021/SCO/1124/201057.asp#.YaUu6xZOnDs
It went all the way to the Ohio Supreme Court where they found with a lack of intent to harm, the owners were not at fault, but that’s a near miss. He said he filled the 8" post with dry concrete mix so if it rained it might ‘firm up’ which is sus and then buried it 36" in the ground testifying he was confident it would ‘lay over’ if struck. I’m not saying he wasn’t morally in the right, but there’s no way those to statements were factual accounts of how that went down. of course, the driver seeing an 8" post under a mailbox would have been equally insane trying to run through it. I’m thinking with a different set of lawyers, intent wouldn’t have been all that hard to prove.
Also, could you imagine needing to employ a lawyer through several court cases, an appeal, and ultimately state supreme court hearings to keep from being responsible.
could you imagine needing to employ a lawyer through several court cases, an appeal, and ultimately state supreme court hearings to keep from being responsible.
The “I would sue”/“you should sue!” crowd isn’t listening!
It couldn’t have been considered a booby trap, legally speaking, because it was a mailbox and was harmless for normal operation and traffic. It could only harm someone vandalizing the mailbox, so that’s why intent came in.
If it was truly a trap, intent wouldn’t have mattered. You are always liable for damages from a booby trap. That’s why you set them up so they can’t cause damage.
It couldn’t have been considered a booby trap, legally speaking, because it was a mailbox and was harmless for normal operation and traffic. I
But it kinda was a booby trap. Guy was tired of his mailbox getting smashed, concrete, 8" steel pipe, railroad tie head, I don’t think he was going to killing the guy or even hurting, but it had happened many times and he knew it was a matter of time before it happened again.
They driver was clearly in the wrong. the box owner imo clearly had intent.
don’t get me wrong, i’m not mad it went down that way, fucking driver was a dickhead and playing stupid games, I would rather the mailbox just destroy the truck and taught him a lesson.
The definition of booby trap requires it to be harmful to anyone who interacts with it, even innocently. Since it was only harmful to someone intending to knock it over by driving into it or who loses control of their vehicle, you need to determine intent to harm.
I’d be surprised if there were any legal consequences for something like this. It’s not a “booby trap” in the traditional sense where it poses a danger to legitimate visitors or emergency responders entering a property. It is a solid structure inside another (seemingly less solid) structure. You should already not be trying to ram into it. It poses zero risk to anyone that doesn’t already intent to maliciously destroy the apparently less solid structure.
And it plausibly helps support the snow. There is a legitimate purpose.
we have issues in the UK with something like this. if you pay road tax you can park anywhere that isn’t parking controlled, including outside peoples houses (so long as you’re not restricting their access to the highway). some homeowners started putting traffic cones out to “reserve” the spot outside their homes (you cant legally do this btw).
People would just push them out of the way with their cars so homeowners started filling them with concrete.
Putting one of those in the road absolutely can and does get you in trouble
The post itself is just clickbait, but legal consequences are not all that clear. It’s honestly mostly about intent.
Here’s a case where a guy’s mailbox kept getting run over so he rebuilt it with a railroad tie and an 8" pipe burried 3 ft in the ground packed with concrete, and the guy who smashed it destroyed his car and paralyzed himself. https://www.courtnewsohio.gov/cases/2021/SCO/1124/201057.asp#.YaUu6xZOnDs
It went all the way to the Ohio Supreme Court where they found with a lack of intent to harm, the owners were not at fault, but that’s a near miss. He said he filled the 8" post with dry concrete mix so if it rained it might ‘firm up’ which is sus and then buried it 36" in the ground testifying he was confident it would ‘lay over’ if struck. I’m not saying he wasn’t morally in the right, but there’s no way those to statements were factual accounts of how that went down. of course, the driver seeing an 8" post under a mailbox would have been equally insane trying to run through it. I’m thinking with a different set of lawyers, intent wouldn’t have been all that hard to prove.
Also, could you imagine needing to employ a lawyer through several court cases, an appeal, and ultimately state supreme court hearings to keep from being responsible.
The “I would sue”/“you should sue!” crowd isn’t listening!
It couldn’t have been considered a booby trap, legally speaking, because it was a mailbox and was harmless for normal operation and traffic. It could only harm someone vandalizing the mailbox, so that’s why intent came in.
If it was truly a trap, intent wouldn’t have mattered. You are always liable for damages from a booby trap. That’s why you set them up so they can’t cause damage.
But it kinda was a booby trap. Guy was tired of his mailbox getting smashed, concrete, 8" steel pipe, railroad tie head, I don’t think he was going to killing the guy or even hurting, but it had happened many times and he knew it was a matter of time before it happened again.
They driver was clearly in the wrong. the box owner imo clearly had intent.
don’t get me wrong, i’m not mad it went down that way, fucking driver was a dickhead and playing stupid games, I would rather the mailbox just destroy the truck and taught him a lesson.
The definition of booby trap requires it to be harmful to anyone who interacts with it, even innocently. Since it was only harmful to someone intending to knock it over by driving into it or who loses control of their vehicle, you need to determine intent to harm.