Main > Everything Else
Stupid stupid plows
Ed_McCarron:
--- Quote from: DrewKaree on March 20, 2007, 12:27:06 am ---Purposefully putting something in his yard that serves no purpose other than to damage someone else's vehicle most certainly can get you sued and there's a very real possibility that they CAN win.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: DrewKaree on March 20, 2007, 12:27:06 am ---In case you seem to think those are unreasonable, planting your mailbox eleventy feet deep in concrete with solid metal posts being the support system for them can get you sued, and you WILL lose when it is demonstrated that you did this to "get them ---daisies--- back" - the ones that keep running over your mailbox because they're hammered. Same thing, same concept, same outcome, and this is a definitive case.
--- End quote ---
Theres a difference here. It could be argued that the mailbox (if situated by a curb, as in many rural areas) was in the public right-of-way. I've helped get one of those historical markers you see along the side of the road placed, and one of the requirements is that the pole it is mounted on is breakaway -- its likely it will get hit.
Chad's lawn is probably not in the right of way. Suppose he built a decorative wishing well out of brick (well onto his property) and someone hit it. I don't think they'd have much of a case. Extrapolate. They drive across his lawn and hit his house. What happens then?
billf:
--- Quote from: Ed_McCarron on March 20, 2007, 08:32:17 am ---Chad's lawn is probably not in the right of way. Suppose he built a decorative wishing well out of brick (well onto his property) and someone hit it. I don't think they'd have much of a case. Extrapolate. They drive across his lawn and hit his house. What happens then?
--- End quote ---
Ed you beat me to this point. As I was reading the replies, this is exactly what I was thinking.
DrewKaree:
--- Quote from: Ed_McCarron on March 20, 2007, 08:32:17 am ---
Suppose he built a decorative wishing well out of brick (well onto his property) and someone hit it. I don't think they'd have much of a case. Extrapolate. They drive across his lawn and hit his house. What happens then?
--- End quote ---
The situation I'm referring to: The pole was knocked over enough times that he decided to move the base 4 feet off where the mailbox had to be, actually putting it in his front lawn where it wasn't considered right-of-way. The second time it happened and he complained to the Post Office, they laid it out for him about all the stipulations he had to meet, and when he went to the city, they laid out the idea that he should do the roadside breakaway post and laid out the easement the city had in cases such as the snowplow tearing up his yard or running over his mailbox with a plow (their example, it was spring-ish, so the plow wasn't even an issue, they were simply giving him ideas).
It's why he set it so far back, and he had one long friggen pipe coming from the post holding everything in so that his mailbox would be at the proper place for the mail carrier. He got sued because the idiot that hit his car had to do something similar to what happened in Chad's case - jump the curb and go 4-wheelin'. The post took out the axle of the car, and my cousin was sued because if it hadn't been set up as such, the case was made that the guy's car would still be operational and that my cousin's setup made no differentiation between someone losing control of their car and the "setup" to do damage. His mailbox was run over 4 times in a 3 months by some asshat in his neighborhood, and to this day, I believe my cousin "got" the right guy.
Billf, I've already laid it out for you and your post. Ed is simply pointing out the same thing (although I don't believe he meant to). Note the added the word that SHOULD have gotten your attention - d-e-c-o-r-a-t-i-v-e. What about that word can't you grasp? What part of "I agree with you, but there's better ways to do it" don't you grasp? What about the concept of 4-5 decorative stones on the edge of his property accomplishing the same thing don't you grasp?
Here. Since you guys can't latch on to the difference between decorative and vengeful, and nobody OTHER than shmokes is arguing the possibility that a purposefully vengeful setup might get their ass sued, I'll point out the idiocy none of you are even CLOSE to talking about with "decorative walls/birdbaths/planters" ::) (billf, I hope putting the word in bold AND italics so many times helps you in your quest)
--- Quote from: clanggedin on March 19, 2007, 03:13:36 pm ---
Pant (sic) a nice row of road spikes under the bushes.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: shardian on March 19, 2007, 03:27:38 pm ---Ok then, get you some 5' sections of 4" schedule 40 pipe and a few bags of concrete. Set them bad boys 2' deep in a concrete base and fill em up with concrete. Then plant bushes around them as normal.
Next time this happens, you will know who did it because their plow will still be sitting there when the cops arrive. ;D
--- End quote ---
Now billf (and everyone else who isn't getting the difference they might see in court), demonstrate to me how these equate with DECORATIVE.....the point you can't seem to grasp. Do this because this is the case you'd have to make in court. Regardless of the opinion of shmokes, it's what will have to be done. Knowing that it happened, I can attest to the fact that it's A) NOT a myth, 2) NOT a McD's type of case, and g) NOT a total anomaly that happened somewhere sometime and would almost certainly never happen anywhere else, ever again because it's so incredibly stupid.
And shmokes, if you really think I believed you were saying I did that to Chad's house, you're a bigger dolt than those who can't differentiate between decorative and destructive. The "minoring in math" is because I believe you're trying to have us swallow your tidy summation of such lawsuits based on your statistics that are based on the emissions of your ass.
Your outlook on Chad's "anomalies" are that he's full of crap, yet you, especially considering that you're looking to become a lawyer, are willing to sweep aside the possibility and probability that such cases can come up, can be argued, and can be won, are wanting everyone to believe that they'll NEVER be won. You're wanting to argue that something that could happen CAN'T happen, and for no more reason than because you simply say so. I'm telling you that "Your honor, shmokes said this can't be won. Move to dismiss" wouldn't have worked in a case I personally know that your views are wrong about.
ChadTower:
Wow. This got intense.
Anyway, about the plants, Drew... they are common bushes, I should be able to replace them for probably $20-40 a plant I'd estimate depending on how mature I want them to be. It will be a major pain to dig up the existing trunks and yank them, I bet - those were some very mature and healthy plants. Being only 5' high I can probably get plants already to height, or within a year of it, but it will take at least 3 and maybe up to 6-7 to get the depth back. I planted the same type of bush in another part of my yard 3 years ago and while they are about 7' high now they still haven't developed nearly the depth that the newly dead bushes had.
As for the lawsuit issue, the concept is very simple:
Put up something that has no obvious purpose other than to damage a vehicle, and someone hits it, you're the one to blame.
Put up something that has a decorative/other obvious purpose, and someone hits it, they are to blame, even if it's the same object as above with a smiley face painted on it.
The law is all about the homeowner's intent when placing the object. I had to go over this in detail with a cop a few years ago. I live on a street corner and used to have three driveways - two on one side of the corner and one on the other, connected. Some --missioncontrol-- used to cut the corner on his Harley by going through our yard. He even drove over my son's toys a couple of times - toys clearly for a toddler and he was driving right through them without looking.
So I put up a thin chain across the driveway through which he was entering. A Cop was good enough to knock on my door and let me know that if the guy did it, got hurt by the chain, I'd be liable and would get ---my bottom--- sued. The guy would still be charged with a couple violations when the EMTs picked him up but I would be liable for his damages. The solution the Cop proposed was to put up some decorative plantings along the chain - tie the plants to the chain so that it appears the chain is there to keep the plants upright. That way the chain has an obvious purpose other than flipping a motorcycle. Even though it was the same object, giving it an outward purpose covered my liability.
Eventually, I tore up the driveway since I had no use for it, but that's how the law was explained to me by a Police Sergeant.
DrewKaree:
--- Quote from: ChadTower on March 20, 2007, 02:26:51 pm ---
Anyway, about the plants, Drew... they are common bushes, I should be able to replace them for probably $20-40 a plant I'd estimate depending on how mature I want them to be. It will be a major pain to dig up the existing trunks and yank them, I bet - those were some very mature and healthy plants. Being only 5' high I can probably get plants already to height, or within a year of it, but it will take at least 3 and maybe up to 6-7 to get the depth back. I planted the same type of bush in another part of my yard 3 years ago and while they are about 7' high now they still haven't developed nearly the depth that the newly dead bushes had.
--- End quote ---
What's the "look"?
Evergreen:
Deciduous (leaves fall off in the fall):
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version