Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Where are you getting the information that he built his mailbox on someone else's property? The original article states that the mailbox was in his yard.
Verbal arguments given last week stated that Cletus Snay was driving to work in December 2016 when his truck hit a patch of black ice and slid into the formidable aforementioned mailbox in Matthew Burr’s yard in Bellevue, Ohio. https://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...mxm-story.html
I think that they are trying to claim that mailboxes are not allowed to be on the city/county easement at the road edge. Every home I have lived in has an easement area, generally 6 feet from the road that is technically city/county property.
The OSC has discretionary appeal status in cases like this, mandatory appeal of right is mostly for death penalty cases. They could have refused to hear it, but it seems to be of great public interest/concern. Since there is no federal question involved, the OSC exhausts all remedies.
I'm glad it's being heard because IMO the homeowner knew what he was doing when he fortified that mailbox. Wonder how he would feel if there was a little kid or baby in the truck that lost their life. He probably still wouldn't care
Very interesting that it's a very narrow 2 lane street and that the speed limit is 55. It says the driver was doing 45.
here is part of page 6 of the document you linked to.
Quote:
According to Trooper Robert Jones, who arrived at the accident scene around 2:44 p.m., it was not raining or snowing at the time, and the skies were clear, but YoungRoad was pretty icy in spots with “black ice.” (R. 39, Jones Depo., pp. 10-11,13, Supp. 114-115, 117).
Trooper Jones testified that black ice is clear and appears to blend in with the road, and that a driver going down the road may not be able to identify it. (Id., p. 23,Supp. 127)
There are no known witnesses to the accident. (Id., p. 12, Supp. 116). Upon arriving at the scene, Trooper Jones found Mr. Snay’s black F-250 pickup truck off the north side of Young Road, the truck having rolled-over. (Id., p. 11, Supp. 115). Trooper Jones ’investigation concluded that the truck went off the right side of the road, began to fishtail, then over turned. In the process, Mr. Snay’s vehicle struck two mailboxes. (Id., pp. 18-19, Supp.122-123). Trooper Jones did not calculate the speed of Mr. Snay’s vehicle. (Id., p. 23, Supp.127). He determined, however, that the roll-over was initiated after the pick-up truck struck the first mailbox, but before striking the second, and that striking the first mailbox assisted in causing the vehicle to fishtail. (Id., pp. 25-27, Supp. 129-131). Trooper Jones also testified that while the post from the first mailbox remained in the ground, the second mailbox was completely destroyed. (Id., p. 27, Supp. 131).
The plaintiffs’ accident reconstruction expert, James Crawford, agreed the physical evidence documented by the police showed Mr. Snay’s pickup truck did not overturn before striking the first mailbox support. (R. 37, Tab “4", Crawford Aff., Ex. B., p. 5, Supp. 23). Mr.Crawford found that “[t]he mechanism causing the pickup to overturn... was the unyielding heavy mailbox support which presented a substantial and dangerous hazard to motorists.” (Id.,p. 6, Supp. 24). Mr. Crawford noted that guidelines published by the United States Postal
I think that they are trying to claim that mailboxes are not allowed to be on the city/county easement at the road edge. Every home I have lived in has an easement area, generally 6 feet from the road that is technically city/county property.
An easement just means someone else has the right to access your property. The other poster was claiming the mailbox was built on someone else's land. Except for those with community mailbox locations or mailboxes attached to their house, just about every mailbox is placed within the easement. No one is building a mailbox in the middle of their yard.
Where are you getting the information that he built his mailbox on someone else's property? The original article states that the mailbox was in his yard.
Verbal arguments given last week stated that Cletus Snay was driving to work in December 2016 when his truck hit a patch of black ice and slid into the formidable aforementioned mailbox in Matthew Burr’s yard in Bellevue, Ohio. https://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...mxm-story.html
Jesus H. Christ!!! Do you not understand the meaning of a road RIGHT OF WAY? Do you think that newspapers are always technically correct in everything they write?
Why do I waste my time trying to educate the uneducable?
PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. 1: Although a landowner may generally owe no duty to errant motorists who strike an off-road hazard, an exception exists giving rise to a duty where the landowner consciously creates a hazardous condition in the right-of-way, in close proximity to the traveled portion of the roadway, with actual knowledge of the danger it presents to motorists who unintentionally, but foreseeably, veer off the traveled portion of the roadway.
PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. 2: The open and obvious doctrine does not apply to obviate a landowner’s duty not to consciously place a hazardous item in the right-of-way in close proximity to the traveled portion of the roadway.
PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. 3: An accident reconstructionist’s opinion that plaintiff’s vehicle would not have overturned upon leaving the traveled portion of the roadway “but for” its encounter with a dangerous, unyielding mailbox post is admissible on the issue of proximate cause and is sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact on that issue.
PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. 1: Although a landowner may generally owe no duty to errant motorists who strike an off-road hazard, an exception exists giving rise to a duty where the landowner consciously creates a hazardous condition in the right-of-way, in close proximity to the traveled portion of the roadway, with actual knowledge of the danger it presents to motorists who unintentionally, but foreseeably, veer off the traveled portion of the roadway.
PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. 2: The open and obvious doctrine does not apply to obviate a landowner’s duty not to consciously place a hazardous item in the right-of-way in close proximity to the traveled portion of the roadway.
PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. 3: An accident reconstructionist’s opinion that plaintiff’s vehicle would not have overturned upon leaving the traveled portion of the roadway “but for” its encounter with a dangerous, unyielding mailbox post is admissible on the issue of proximate cause and is sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact on that issue.
That's precisely my point. The mailbox was NOT on his property. It was on the street right-of-way. So any comparison to a mailbox on state/county property and what someone builds on their own property is an apples to elephants comparison.
Probably should read a little closer - It was on his property. He owns the land that the mailbox was placed on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chas863
Jesus H. Christ!!! Do you not understand the meaning of a road RIGHT OF WAY? Do you think that newspapers are always technically correct in everything they write?
Why do I waste my time trying to educate the uneducable?
It seems like maybe you are not willing to learn. The mailbox IS on his property but in the area of the property that has a right of way easement for public use.
I think it is you that does not understand what right of way means - it means cannot prevent use if needs to be used such as widening the road or accessing utilities, not that can't use for any purpose - many have mailboxes on the right of way because would be too far from the road otherwise.
My mailbox is in the area of an underground utility easement - they can take out my mailbox if they need to dig up the utility.
Probably should read a little closer - It was on his property. He owns the land that the mailbox was placed on.
It seems like maybe you are not willing to learn. The mailbox IS on his property but in the area of the property that has a right of way easement for public use.
I think it is you that does not understand what right of way means - it means cannot prevent use if needs to be used such as widening the road or accessing utilities, not that can't use for any purpose - many have mailboxes on the right of way because would be too far from the road otherwise.
My mailbox is in the area of an underground utility easement - they can take out my mailbox if they need to dig up the utility.
The phrase "Right of Way" is a little misleading, and perhaps even has different meanings in different situations. I'm a Civil Engineer and have done surveying work for state governments, the federal government, and private citizens.
I can tell you without doubt that in every instance I've been involved with when the term ROW was used with regard to federal, state, or county roads, it meant that the governing entity OWNED the land from one side of the ROW to the other side of the ROW. This could be anywhere from about 10 feet beyond the edge of the pavement on small roads to perhaps 120 feet on each side of the pavement on interstate highways.
You can confirm this on your local lot by simply having a survey done. You may be surprised to know that you DON'T own right up to the edge of the street... not even close. At best, you may own up to about 10 feet from the edge of the paved road/street. The rest of that land that you mow and put your mailbox on belongs to the government entity that owns and maintains the roadway.
So, when the guy in this thread topic put his mailbox 21" from the edge of the road, it wasn't on HIS property. It was on the state or county's property that owns and maintains the roadway. Again, you can have this checked by a licensed surveyor. If your deed description says that your lot is 150 feet deep, then that 150 foot starting point is not at the edge of the pavement. It's at the point where your property line intersects the state/county ROW... which, as I said before will typically be at least 10 feet and sometimes considerably more. That means that your mailbox that sits a couple of feet from the edge of the pavement is NOT on your property. It's on the state or county property. They simply allow you to mow the grass for them and put your mailbox there for the convenience of the mail carrier.
There are a lot of naturally occurring and manmade immovable objects in the world, he'd have nobody to sue if he hit a tree or a streetlight so I don't see the point of a mailbox being a something questionable, but that's why the courts exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kell490
What about power polls up and down streets here are steel power poles that are 4 feet in diameter concreted 10 feet in the ground. Should we line the streets with rubber bumpers so people can bounce there way down the street when they lose control. It was just an accident no one is to blame.
Power poles are further off the roadway most places it seems. But that brings up a good point. To what degree does the defendant's mailbox represent an greater threat not only relative to the mailbox but to other common roadside hazards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by move4ward
What's a normal mailbox? There are entire subdivisions with brick mailboxes. They exceed the 2" diameter guidelines. He's not going to have much luck plowing through them.
Actually, the brick mailboxes likely would end up yielding to a vehicle.
A large metal pipe filled with concrete and sunk 3 feet down is a lot stronger than a bunch of bricks which while strong, are somewhat brittle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
Regarding your 1-4 above, what does the law actually require, or prohibit?
That's the question before the court. There are a million situations where the law doesn't prohibit an activity but that doesn't mean it doesn't expose one to liability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
If there is no duty to build a minimalist structure mailbox, how will he be negligent by building a more substantial mailbox?
If building a more substantial box created an unreasonable hazard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMansLands
Can't be intentional. There is absolutely no way the homeowner could have known that this bad driver was coming along and was going to drive into his mailbox. Homeowner has no crystal ball.
He built it the way he did because it had been broken in the past. The idea was that whatever collided with it would lose. He didn't seem to anticipate the potential cost to people though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
