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!
That doesn’t sound accurate. Plenty of places use ballasts and those are legal. A ballast is a barrier, typically concrete but some are plastic and filled with sand, and they are commonly used to keep cars out of pedestrian spaces. You might not even notice them sometimes, but if you think about what keeps cars off the sidewalk or out of parks, you might notice them.
The person failed to mention that the guy whose mail box got hit hasn’t been successfully sued, just that a lawsuit had been brought against them. Ultimately the person with the mailbox was not held liable. You can watch a video about it here
As an edit, this case had nothing to do with booby trap laws, so I am not sure why it was used as an example.
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.
aka bollards, like on this website
https://www.idealshield.com/the-6-most-popular-types-of-bollards/