By and large, when I handle negligence cases, I do so as a defense attorney. So, I have a definite bias when I disagree with the Court of Appeal’s decision today in Sparks v. White (pdf). In that case, the Court of Appeals upheld a trial court’s decision to deny summary judgment to property owners where the property owners had a brick mailbox about 3 feet off the highway. A motorist left the road for reasons that were not explained by the Plaintiff and struck the mailbox. The court decided that it would be legally appropriate if a jury were to decide that the property owner should anticipate that the motorist might leave the road and that the mailbox was built too strong and, therefore, that the property owners owed the motorist money for her injuries. The Court of Appeals cited a similar decision where they held that a property owner could be found liable by a jury for a fence post 6 feet off the property that was sturdier than necessary.
In my mind, summary judgment should have been appropriate in these cases and the property owners shouldn’t be subjected to trial by jury. Juries are to decide fact issues. There don’t appear to be any issues of fact in these cases; only value judgments to be imposed on those facts – namely whether the post or the mailbox was “too strong.” In particular, the mailbox couldn’t have been placed much further back from the road. Postal regulations required it to be accessible by a mail truck from the road. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think a property owner should be required to anticipate a motorist will leave the road and drive on the owner’s property.
I wonder if the plaintiffs will be required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence what the injuries would have been with obstructions that weren’t “too strong” versus the obstructions that were actually in place. Because, if you’re allowed to have a mailbox in that location, it is going to cause some impact. The property owner should not be responsible for injuries that would have been caused anyway up to that level of impact. Therefore, at the very least, the plaintiff should have a fairly demanding burden of proof for showing which injuries were in fact caused by the “excess” impact. Otherwise, the property owner is potentially liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars for the egregious act of having a mailbox.
Horrible. I think your last paragraph captures the biggest problem here. It was inevitable that any mailbox in that location would have caused some property damage. So the baseline here, rather than zero, is the amount of damage caused by the inappropriate aspects of the mailbox. While I disagree with the result, I thought a particular lowlight of the opinion was at page 10, where the court engages in some amateur accident reconstruction, purporting to know that the mailbox was bigger than recommended, that it “stood its ground” longer than a different mailbox might have, or even that the damage visible on the car was caused by the mailbox, as opposed to any other object, the act of leaving the road, or even the nature of the slightly depressed drainage area in which the car collided with the mailbox. Also, they ignore that section 368 of the restatement applies only when a driver is “traveling with reasonable care.” Also, how does the court know that this sort of structure wasn’t necessary to prevent vandalism?
I find the absence of any testimony from the plaintiff to be odd. Still, the Court seems to be saying that even if the Plaintiff had admitted that she was not paying attention, or fell asleep, or was going too fast, and thereby left a straight county road in broad daylight on a sunny day, this still would be a jury question. That’s just astounding. I suppose I can see stopping short of a bright line rule–i.e., the decision might be different if such a structure were placed at a dangerous curve in the road–but the idea of holding a landowner liable for damage caused by a mailbox, which just as easily could have been a tree, is hard to fathom.
May i just tell you that I swerved to miss a deer that I clipped to hit my neighbors mailbox while going speed limit of 45 mph. The impact was so severe my airbags deployed along with the entire dashboard of my car breaking and causing whiplash not realized immediately. Was taken by ambulance to a trauma center… i have bumps bruises and abrasions and a lot of pain in my stomach from seatbelt…
His mailbox was not dented but was lifted out of the ground. In the state of Kentucky you are required to have a breakaway mailbox. This one was solid steel post with concrete. I believe had my car been smaller it would have killed me.
Huh. So if your house is close to the road and a motorist hits it, breaking their car or hurting themselves, it’s your fault for not living in a straw hut?
I’ve always been under the apparent misapprehension that it’s my job, as a motorist, to keep my car on the road. Silly me!
Another irony here is that we don’t own “our” mailboxes. They belong to the USPS and other people putting stuff in those boxes is a crime.
That said, I suppose I own the brick that surrounds my USPS mailbox– and am thus, responsible for it.
And what freedom is one granted in mailbox location? If the USPS requires it to be near the road, and if I build a shoddy mailbox given its proximity to the road, should the govt pay for it when it gets hit?
USPS doesn’t own your mailbox. They have an exclusive right to place something in it, but they don’t own it.
Believe law is contrary to your position…..
Mailboxes Are Federal Property
Assuming a USPS-compliant mailbox is installed and ready for use, it’s considered federal property. In other words, the homeowner doesn’t legally own his or her mailbox; it’s the property of the U.S. government.
As board member of a 200 townhouse association the USPS now makes us order and pay for a group mailbox which was shipped to them for installed. And lock management. Individual damaging a box can be changed with damaging federal property.
We own a masonry company and repair a lot of mailboxes that have been hit. If you hit a mailbox, your insurance company reimbursed the homeowner for the damage, not the government.
My fourth mailbox in the last seven years is a steel one. It’s an official-looking thing, mounted on a four by four, all from Lowes.
This mailbox has been hit by a ballbat at least two times now, barely denting it.
I bet that hurts.
Very interesting decision. In many parts of the country farmers have finally put in “substantial” posts after having fence wiped out several times including drivers leaving while livestock got onto the road—and the resultant liability there plus a really dangerous situation. Hopefully this will be reviewed and overturned.
I know my dad would like the county to pay for his since they run it over every other winter with their snowplows…..
I’m not a lawyer, so I won’t argue the merits one way or another. But as an architect, I’m curious to know if six feet is the magic number. If I have a ‘sturdier than necessary’ fence seven feet off of the road, then legally I’m okay?
That’s just the problem. I doubt there *is* a magic number. You’re at the mercy of jurors looking at the issue in hindsight while confronted with potentially sympathetic, hurt, plaintiff who they might want to help because they’re nice people.
There’s no firm, cold legal calculus that will keep you safe from owing a bunch of money if something bad happens to someone.
The answer is so obvious…we need legislation protecting lousy drivers from strong mailboxes.
Well, a committee first, then a consultant, then a study, THEN legislation.
That’s how we fix things here in 21st century America, legislation and gobs of money = case solved.
Just for fun, I’ll make the contrary argument.
Imagine, the Defendant, one Vlad M. Paylorr, inspired by a Mad Max film festival, constructs a mailbox armored with an array of 18″ gleaming titanium spikes. While attempting to get out of the way of an uncoming police chase, Plaintiff skids on an icy berm and comes to grief on one of the aforementioned spikes. Liability? Well, it certainly seems possible; Vlad’s mailbox was unreasonably hazardous.
These facts are, of course, more extreme than the actual case, but this little thought experiment shows that a mailbox could be unreasonably hazardous so as to support a finding of liability, and that it is, ultimately a judgment call.
Lemme get this straight… if the mailbox is property of the USPS, then we can “bill them back” for replacement boxes when destroyed?
And we can forward any damage claims by drivers HITTING them over to the USPS for payment?
In effect, all I have to do is get my mail, replace the box when needed, get my check for compensation, and take all the driver claims to the local post office for reimbursement…
Got it.
Thanks.
;)
B.G.
That’s the problem with your scenario, Bob. The USPS owns the mailbox, not the post. Pretty sure it was the post that the motorist sued over.
If some engineer would just develop a flexible post that could withstand both a baseball bat and a automobile, they’d be rolling in the dough.
Without reading the legal stuff… is the post box within the right-of-way? Are there restrictions on what can be placed in the right-of-way? If the answer to one or both of those is “no” then I’m with John M – the driver should be happy it wasn’t a tree.
Wow, I wish I had read this when I slid on ice last year and hit a mail box :P
Seems the answer is simple to me plant a tree carve hole for box problem solved