Stupid stupid plows

[shmokes]

That's nonsense.  People like to complain about how ---fouled up beyond all recognition--- up the law is by going on and on about the burglar who sued, etc.  They're usually a) talking about an urban myth, b) as in the case of the lady who sued McDonald's, grossly misinformed about both the facts and the outcome of the case, or c) it's a total anomaly that happened somewhere sometime and would almost certainly never happen anywhere else, ever again because it's so incredibly stupid.

A drunk driver does not get off.  Ever.  If somebody broadsides your car because they ran a red light and the Breathalyzer shows that you were drunk, those 12 people are going to throw the book at you.  People put up barriers all the time to protect the things behind the curb from the things that drive in front of the curb.  The city, in fact, puts up concrete bars for just this purpose.  Chad wouldn't be putting up concrete to "get" the bad guys.  He'd be putting it there to keep drunk drivers from crashing through his yard and potentially into his house and/or children.  It's not like we're telling him to put a mine in his bushes.  The snow plow isn't going to explode when it hits a bit of concrete.

Wait a minute.  Just why are you getting so defensive?  Don't you drive a snow plow?  This sounds like a guilty conscience to me.  Maybe Chad and you should continue this thread through PMs . . .

[DrewKaree]

Sheboygan, WI.

I'll call my cousin up and tell him it was an urban myth that he had to pay money to the asshat who more than likely ran over his mailbox the OTHER 3 times.

I'll tell him the fact that the idiot driver was awarded money for "excessive damages" to his vehicle for running into the concrete-filled post must have been an anomaly, that a jury of idiots didn't award the asshat that money due to "purposeful intent by the homeowner" in setting up his mailbox just as he did and that it did just that - fail to discern between the asshat who supposedly "took his eye off the road for a second" and "the person this setup was supposed to catch".



Tell me you're continuing to argue that something that happens on someone's property won't be attributed to carelessness and/or recklessness to them.  I'd like to call my parents and tell them they can stop throwing their money away on homeowner's insurance.  Oh and hey, all the rest of you that think the hidden concrete pile is the solution, you guys go ahead and cancel your homeowner's insurance too. 

And please, shmokes, as many stories of the burglar being shot, living OR dying, and sueing the homeowner, and you want to claim they're somehow ALL fitting under your 3 neat little categories?  None of those cases has EVER been won?  None of those cases has EVER been something that the homeowner shouldn't have ever been sued for?  Seriously, you're going for a minor in math too, aren't you?

[DrewKaree]

Wait a minute.  Just why are you getting so defensive?  Don't you drive a snow plow?  This sounds like a guilty conscience to me.  Maybe Chad and you should continue this thread through PMs . . .

Because stupid things like this happen all the time, and they DON'T fit your 3 neat little categories.  The fact of the matter is that such stupid things like this happen a bunch, and while you'll admit that something like the McDonald's case happened, you then turn around and say "oh, but that wouldn't happen....or you wouldn't win", when you know that anything that goes to court is entirely dependent on how well one side presents their case over the other, and whether it convinces enough people of the "rightness" of their case.

Yep, I drive a plow.  If I were to ever have a guilty conscience, it'd be because I lied about hitting something.  There's a decent-sized handful of people here (that would include MrC & saint) that can attest to the fact that I've owned up to hitting things with my truck, much to my detriment.  It bugs me that some assclown thought it'd be cool to go off-roading in Chad's front yard and give the rest of us who're honest and far more responsible than him a "black eye".  What REALLY bothers me though, is that there's people on here advocating booby-trapping their yard, whether serious or joking, when it can lead to legal problems for them in the future. 

What's worse, the clown who tore up Chad's lawn, or the guy who would booby trap the front lawn for the express purpose of hoping to catch the same guy?

I'm pointing out that there's ways to do this decoratively that WON'T be looked at like you're hoping to catch and cause harm to whoever would dare cross the curb into your yard, otherwise why NOT just put up a concrete barrier in the front yard with a barbed-wire topping to it?

[shmokes]

Um, I haven't read your last comment yet, but I see what you quoted.     Take a joke.  I don't really think you are the person who crashed into Chad's bushes.    Not minoring in math.  Minoring in information systems.  Gotta go to bed now.  To be continued.

[Ed_McCarron]

Eh, the bushes are there for a reason.

It keeps his neighbors from complaining.

[Ed_McCarron]

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.

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.

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]

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?

Ed you beat me to this point.  As I was reading the replies, this is exactly what I was thinking.

[DrewKaree]

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?

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)

Pant (sic) a nice row of road spikes under the bushes.

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.

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]

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.

What's the "look"?

Evergreen:


Deciduous (leaves fall off in the fall):

[Ed_McCarron]

I think 'mailbox' is the key.

The FHWA seems to say that mailboxes near streets must either be 'breakaway' or 'so damn solid that they can't penetrate the passenger compartment of the vehicle'.

So it either breaks, or stops the car.  I'm guessing your buddies was somewhere in the middle?  Sounds like someone driving head on at it would have impaled the vehicle on the extending post, and thats a no-no.

Sounds like Chad's bollocks would be considered a guardrail, or traffic delineator, and wouldn't fall under the same guidelines.

Man, its all in the fine print.

[shmokes]

I still see a difference.  Certainly you would not be liable if you had simply put a heavy-duty gate up, even though its only purpose is to keep people from driving onto the driveway, and if the motorcycle crashed into it the guy would still be badly injured.  Additionally, a driveway is at least meant to be driven on.  If you have kids that play in your yard, you have a pretty legitimate reason, besides vengeance, for keeping vehicles from driving out of control onto your lawn.  This is especially the case if there is a history of vehicles having a tendency to drive onto your lawn.

[SithMaster]

Concerning killing an intruder in your home, place of business, what have you you can just hide the body.  If someone breaks into your home with a gun or knife you would think they would want to kill any witnesses.  you kill them and the burglars family tries to sue you, to hell with them.

the mailbox thing is stupid and i would wonder how the driver whose axle broke could get away with it.  sounds like if they drove through your house and killed children they could sue, and win, for having their tires ruined.  id try and get even for having to pay.

a camera might work to get the plate numbers if youre asleep or not around.  The wall can be considered a property divider and then you can pretty it up.

[ChadTower]

Damn, lost my post in a browser refresh.

Anyway, the heavy gate serves an obvious purpose, so it fits the criteria given by the Sergeant.

This is a pic from 2003 of the driveway I mentioned.  It's the only pic I could find of the bushes when they're not bare, but from a different section of yard.  The damaged bushes are only a slightly different species.

BTW, I have to dig that whole driveway spot up again this summer and add more soil... it settled more than anticipated and now there is a driveway shaped depression there.

[Ed_McCarron]

it settled more than anticipated and now there is a driveway shaped depression there.

Sprinkle on some Zoloft.  It'll be right as rain.

[billf]

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.

This quote from Chad is exactly what I was going after in my comments.  Kudos to Chad for putting is so succinctly.  DK, I was the first person in this thread to use decorative and I meant decorative.  I'm not sure what you're implying, but I meant decorative.  There are plenty of decorative brick/split face blocks on properties to define the lot lines.  This would clearly mark where the private property is versus public right-of-way.  I was not insinuating putting up a brick wall with the sole purpose of catching "bad drivers" or bad plowmen.  Or intentionally trying to disable or maim someone in the process.

[shmokes]

BTW, Drew.  Maybe I should remind you that, while I think you are largely full of hyperbole here, you and I have spent exactly the same amount of time in law school.

[DrewKaree]

you and I have spent exactly the same amount of time in law school.

So I'd make a better lawyer than you, you think, or are you just reconsidering the profession you're wanting to get into?

[shmokes]

Neither.

[DrewKaree]

Does this mean I can still expect you to defend me in any cases I might need you for (the insanity defense only, please, and I don't care if it IS just a parking ticket, dammit!)?

[boykster]

enough speculation, my story is real.  I DID install a bollard unde a fake garbage can, and a punk kid DID run into it with enough force to damage his car and disable it.  This was after several weeks of the same car (several eye witness reports) smashing garbage cans in the neighborhood on consecutive weeks.  I personally filed 2 police reports prior to that, and even tried to chase the car down one night and spoke with a few officers that evening who were called out.

You wanna know what the local officer did/said?  He chuckled and told me the kid deserved it.  You know what the kid's (driver of the car) father did/said?  Got VERY angry....very very very ANGRY  at HIS SON, not at me.  Sure, he was pissed the car was damaged, but he made his kid (and the other 2 in the car) clean up all the garbage on the street (I watched) and his son sent me a formal apology letter 2 days later.

Sure, could someone have been hurt if they legitamately lost control of their car? Probably, but my street is 25MPH, and 2' from the bollard I have a stone wall.  The bollard simply acted as bait for the asshat who was garbage can bashing.  Do I leave it out there?  No.  Do I still have it?  Absolutely.

Its disappointing that our society has become sooooo litigious that the kneejerk reaction by everyone is to SUE!!!

Oh, and I was never cited for anything, was never served papers by anyone, and have since not had anyone crash into my garbage can since.

[shmokes]

the insanity defense only, please . . .

Jesus, that would be an open and closed case.   All we'll have to do is put you on the stand for 30 seconds and one of the jurors will interupt with, "Your honor, I believe I speak for every member of the jury, as well as everyone else in the courtroom when I say we have reached a verdict."  And the prosecution will just shrug and say, "Seriously, Your Honor, we have no objection . . ." 

[DrewKaree]

the insanity defense only, please . . .

Jesus, that would be an open and closed case.   All we'll have to do is put you on the stand for 30 seconds and one of the jurors will interupt with, "Your honor, I believe I speak for every member of the jury, as well as everyone else in the courtroom when I say we have reached a verdict."  And the prosecution will just shrug and say, "Seriously, Your Honor, we have no objection . . ." 

We could be like Vinny and "da youts"!  You could jack up your "wins" in court and I could act with impunity!  We'll rule the world!  Or something

[JackTucky]

Deciduous (leaves fall off in the fall):

They don't look very deciduous to me.  I think the leaves would be chewy and flavorless.

=J

[hyiu]

well... I'm the guy who posted the suggestion of concrete block in the middle with bushes surrounding (without using the word "decorative")....

well.... didn't check the thread until tonight... and seems like my stupid suggestion got what it deserved....

understand and agree on what you guys say....

and you guessed it right... I'm no lawyer...