It just seems so backwards that making a concrete mailbox can get you sued by a jerk that intentionally drove into it. I can understand banning pitfalls and other actual traps, but why passive defensive deterrents? After all, it’s not like a bystander accidentally wandering onto your property is going to be injured by a random bolder you placed between your garden and the street.

(Edit): It seems I had a fundamental misunderstanding of US law. Thanks for indulging my curiosity!

  • Sumocat@lemmy.worldEnglish
    22·
    2 days ago

    Here’s what our actual laws against booby traps entail: “A booby trap may be defined as any concealed or camouflaged device designed to cause bodily injury when triggered by any action of a person making contact with the device. This term includes guns, ammunition, or explosive devices attached to trip wires or other triggering mechanisms, sharpened stakes, nails, spikes, electrical devices, lines or wires with hooks attached, and devices for the production of toxic fumes or gases.” https://definitions.uslegal.com/b/booby-traps/

    So yeah, actual booby traps are illegal, but a concrete mailbox is not necessarily a booby trap. A lawsuit arguing a concrete mailbox is a booby trap is an attempt to classify it as booby trap, which means it is not currently classified as one.

    • xavier666@lemmy.umucat.dayEnglish
      4·
      2 days ago

      There’s a viral video of a person creating booby-trapped parcels for porch-pirates. They steal the parcel which creates mayhem at their house (stink spray, glitter). Can the thief sue the person?

      • Sumocat@lemmy.worldEnglish
        6·
        1 day ago

        In the States, anyone can attempt to sue anyone for anything. Doesn’t mean you’ll win, or that you won’t be countersued, or that you won’t be penalized for wasting the court’s time, all of which should apply to those two examples.

        Our Great Pumpkin President once sued a journalist for a billion dollars because he hurt his feelings. That was not the stated purpose, but his argument was the journalist caused grievous emotional harm. To be clear, much like Trump at the time, the journalist did not have a billion dollars, and the case was thrown out. https://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=8100467&page=1