• JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    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.

    • rumba@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      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.

      • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        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.