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!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 4 points 1 year ago

I was listing two examples I remembered seeing in YouTube shorts from several different lawyer YouTubers. The only reason I remembered it at all was because there was more than one YouTuber covering similar incidents.

Thanks for the information, though, I'll give the video you linked a watch.

  • source
  • parent