Beware of the Dog signs

[Val (Zebedee)]

We have a characture pic in the window of mushing huskies & the text "Beware of the husky" on it, but something sticks with me from many years ago - you should not have the word "beware" on it as it advertises that your dog will attack and if anyone did get bitten / hurt by the dog, that person was within their right to report a dangerous dog.

So, I have looked for "Be aware of the husky" but I can't find anything. What do you think?

[morningstorm]

Yeah im sure that my husband Marc who is a police officer told me when he was doing his training that if you put up a beware of the dog sign then you are liable if someone breaks into your garden and the dog bites them so therefor I have no sign up. Mad isnt it

[brian brown]

Yeah im sure that my husband Marc who is a police officer told me when he was doing his training that if you put up a beware of the dog sign then you are liable if someone breaks into your garden and the dog bites them so therefor I have no sign up. Mad isnt it

I was told the opposite by the police, BEWARE of the dog sign is a warning so if someone breaks in, they can't report it, they were warned!

[valkyries]

have this instead [MENTION=143]Val (Zebedee)[/MENTION]

[Sparks]

Maybe... 'Don't beware the huskies, beware the owners'...

I've seen this one before, but the word 'huskies' was replaced by 'dog' lol

[Mollys Dad]

From a different point of view, advertising that you have a Husky might not be such a good idea as a) they are (generally) known as being a bit rubbish at being guard dogs and they are nick-able and valuable to unscrupulous (spelling?) re-sellers

[Dunc]

http://www.husky-owners.com/forum/main-chat/2856-aware-husky

[Ravenwolf]

I think it's just another one of those heresay type of things, as opposed to something actually bad. It's usually "this happened to my uncle's cousin's best friend's neighbour." I've spent nearly the last 2 hours looking for information on this, and I can find nothing on the internet confirming liability if you have a 'Beware of Dog' sign. Most of the laws I looked at are pretty ambiguous and don't even mention courtesy signage, so I don't think it's an issue because of it. I think it just becomes another one of those points in each individual case where it comes down to which lawyer is the better spindoctor.

The only one that actually mentioned signage was from Washington State, where the 'beware of dog' sign is actually a beneficial defense if your dog does bite someone who is trespassing (bolding mine):

(3) The owner of any dog that aggressively attacks and causes severe injury or death of any human, whether or not the dog has previously been declared potentially dangerous or dangerous, shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a class C felony punishable in accordance with RCW 9A.20.021. It is an affirmative defense that the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the human severely injured or killed by the defendant's dog: (a) Trespassed on the defendant's real or personal property which was enclosed by fencing suitable to prevent the entry of young children and designed to prevent the dog from escaping and marked with clearly visible signs warning people, including children, not to trespass and to beware of dog; or ( provoked the defendant's dog without justification or excuse on the defendant's real or personal property which was enclosed by fencing suitable to prevent the entry of young children and designed to prevent the dog from escaping and marked with clearly visible signs warning people, including children, not to trespass and to beware of dog. In such a prosecution, the state has the burden of showing that the owner of the dog either knew or should have known that the dog was potentially dangerous as defined in this chapter. The state may not meet its burden of proof that the owner should have known the dog was potentially dangerous solely by showing the dog to be a particular breed or breeds. RCW 16.08.100: Dangerous dogs

UK Animal Act, 1971:

Exceptions from liability under sections 2 to 4.

(1) A person is not liable under sections 2 to 4 of this Act for any damage which is due wholly to the fault of the person suffering it.

(2) A person is not liable under section 2 of this Act for any damage suffered by a person who has voluntarily accepted the risk thereof.

(3) A person is not liable under section 2 of this Act for any damage caused by an animal kept on any premises or structure to a person trespassing there, if it is proved either—

(a) that the animal was not kept there for the protection of persons or property; or

( (if the animal was kept there for the protection of persons or property) that keeping it there for that purpose was not unreasonable.

Animals Act 1971

So this one is a bit more of a grey area - one could argue both ways that a "beware of dog" sign implies a guard dog, or that it doesn't, it's just a warning. To the letter of the law, though, the sign would have to actually state that the dogs is there for guarding purposes such as "guard dog on duty" or "watch dog." And one could argue as to whether a guard dog would be reasonable to have to protect a house - that would be for the lawyers to have fun with, and would probably depend on the safety of your neighbourhood. But guard dogs in the UK appear to be regulated in the Guard Dogs Act, 1975:

(3) A person shall not use or permit the use of a guard dog at any premises unless a notice containing a warning that a guard dog is present is clearly exhibited at each entrance to the premises.

The owner of a guard dog may be liable for any injury to a person under s 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971, unless they come within one of the exceptions in s 5.

Guard Dogs Act 1975

For Canada it appears to be provincial legislation, so it varies by province/territory. In Ontario, the Dog Owners' Liability Act Section 2 dictates the parameters of the law, wherein trespassing is not mentioned as an automatic exemption. However, it DOES mention that the owner is not liable if the person is on the premises with the intention of committing a crime, so long as it is not proven that having a dog for protection is unreasonable.

Dog Owners' Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. D.16

My own province of Saskatchewan has the best law, sounds like!

No animal shall be declared dangerous because of an action described in clause (1)(a), ( or © that occurred while the animal was:

(a) acting in the performance of police work; or

( working as a guard dog on commercial property while:

(i) securely enclosed on the property by a fence or other barrier sufficient to prevent the escape of the animal and the entry of children of tender years; and

(ii) defending that property against a person who was committing an offence.

However:

376(2) Any person who displays a prescribed sign warning of the presence of a dangerous animal and who is not acting on an order made pursuant to subsection 375(5) or has not received the permission of a council to display the sign is guilty of an offence.

Because a dog is not considered to be inherently dangerous (unless declared so by a judge following an incident), then in theory the a "Beware of Dog" sign is NOT a warning of a dangerous animal. Here, owners of a "convicted" dangerous dog are given instructions on the type of signage they will be required to post. This is the type of signage section 376 refers to. I could find no information on what constitutes this type of signage, but it appears that the words 'dangerous' or 'vicious' need to be clearly legible. This seems to be common in many of the provincial laws.

Canada - Saskatchewan Statutes - Dangerous Animals

Edited June 14, 2012 by Ravenwolf

[Austinville]

Here in the Iowa, "Beware of Dog" signs indicate that you are aware that the dog may bite and by putting up the sign, you can be held liable.

I prefer "Dog on Premises" - Doesn't indicate whether it will bite or not - just simply lets people know there is a dog on the property.

Also, many insurance companies consider the husky to be a dog that is 'unpredictable' by indicating there is a husky on premises, you could find yourself facing higher insurance rates.

[Elyse]

That's the same where I live. As far as I know, it doesn't matter if I put up a 'beware of dog' sign up. If my dog bites somebody and if they go to the police/hospital and choose to press charges, it is the LAW I have to put him down or face criminal charges myself.

[Ravenwolf]

That's the same where I live. As far as I know, it doesn't matter if I put up a 'beware of dog' sign up. If my dog bites somebody and if they go to the police/hospital and choose to press charges, it is the LAW I have to put him down or face criminal charges myself.

Dude, you live in Ontario. Read the legislation in the link I posted above!

Dog Owners' Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. D.16

Bite doesn't mean automatic destruction, and there are mitigating factors for contribution of the fault of the plaintiff (eg: were they tormenting or otherwise antagonizing the dog?). In Canada we don't have a "one bite free" rule, but a person trespassing - especially if there is criminal intent - pretty much seems to waive the liability of the owner.

[Elyse]

Dude, you live in Ontario. Read the legislation in the link I posted above!

Dog Owners' Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. D.16

Bite doesn't mean automatic destruction, and there are mitigating factors for contribution of the fault of the plaintiff (eg: were they tormenting or otherwise antagonizing the dog?). In Canada we don't have a "one bite free" rule, but a person trespassing - especially if there is criminal intent - pretty much seems to waive the liability of the owner.

I'll take a look at that...thanks. That isn't what I was told by the H.S when I got him. Maybe they were just trying to scare me away from getting a husky, though, cause they were asking me all sorts of husky-related questions.

[mydiamond]

I don't know about you guys but posting any "beware of dogs" sign is not a good idea in here =\ first of all, there are lots of idiots roaming around everywhere. First thing that came up to their mind when they saw that sign is "ooh it's a purebred dog! $$$!!" second of all, my dog is the worst guard dog on Earth even that noisy golden retriever my neighbor kept as a watch dog got stolen the other day why won't they steal my friendly, silent baby?

[AttilaVikingsDemon]

Here is a book you all should check out: Amazon.com: Every Dog's Legal Guide: A Must Have Book for Your Owner (9781413303551): Mary Randolph: Books

I found this for you, but before I put it up for you, I would put up a sign that said, "Dog on premesis" or "Dog on Duty", its just as good as warning people who may trespass, but not admitting anything about biting, either.

When someone is injured by a dog, the dog’s owner may not be legally responsible if the injured person:

• provoked the injury from the dog
  
• knowingly took the risk of being injured by the dog
  
• was trespassing
  
• was breaking the law, or
  
• was unreasonably careless, and that carelessness contributed to the injury.
  

Not all these defenses can be used in all states. Sometimes, the defenses that can be used depend on what the dog owner is being sued for. For example, some defenses may be available if the dog owner's liability is based on the one-bite rule, but not under a dog-bite statute.

Was the Dog Provoked?

A dog owner may be able to successfully defend a lawsuit by showing that the injured person provoked the dog.

Some clearly provocative acts—for example, hitting or teasing a dog—will get a dog owner off the hook. (See Von Behren v. Bradley, 266 Ill. App. 3d 446 (1994), petition for leave to appeal denied (1995).) A person may unintentionally provoke a dog, too. If, for example, you accidentally step on a dog's tail, that's provocation. (Brans v. Extrom, 266 Mich. App. 216 (2005).) Or if a toddler tries to hug a strange dog, and the dog turns and bites, the dog's owner will probably not be liable for the injury, regardless of the dog's prior behavior. (See, for example, Reed v. Bowen, 503 So.2d 1265 (Fla. App. 1986); Toney v. Bouthillier, 631 P.2d 557 (Ariz. App. 1981).)

A general word of warning: Unique circumstances may always affect the legal outcome. If, for example, a dog were known to have a hair trigger around children, the legal result could be different.

There are many ways a person, especially one unfamiliar with dogs, can unknowingly provoke a dog. Petting a dog when it's eating, going near its special territory, or intervening in a dog fight can provoke a hostile response. And dogs in strange surroundings are often nervous and may bite out of fear if approached.

In two states (Massachusetts and Connecticut), if the injured person is a child younger than seven, the law presumes the child didn't provoke the dog. In those states, an owner who wants to assert provocation as a defense bears the burden of proving it.

Did the Injured Person Know the Risk of Injury?

A dog owner may also avoid liability by proving that the injured person knew there was a risk of injury from the dog, but voluntarily took that risk. The theory is that someone who knowingly took the risk and was injured can't later hold the dog's owner responsible for such foolhardiness.

For example, a jury decided that a house guest, severely bitten by a 95-pound Akita, had put himself at risk. The man, who had taken care of the dog several times over the years, had gone into a room where the dog was closed off from the rest of the house. He sued the dog's owner for negligence (in Tennessee, which had no dog-bite statute at the time), but the jury decided that the owner hadn't done anything wrong and rejected the $375,000 claim. ("Retired doctor not at fault for dog's attack, jury says,"Memphis Commercial Appeal, Dec. 7, 1990.)

The same goes for warning signs. Someone who ignores a prominent "Beware of Dog" sign is probably not going to be able to blame the dog's owner for any injuries. For example, a Maryland delivery man ignored a "Guard Dog on Duty" sign at a warehouse and was bitten by a German shepherd that most definitely was on duty. He sued but lost. A court concluded that he knowingly risked injury. (Benton v. Aquarium, Inc., 489 A.2d 549 (Md. App. 1985).)

People who make a living working with dogs—as groomers, pet sitters, veterinarians, or kennel operators, for example—are generally presumed to voluntarily take the risk of a dog bite. (See “If a Dog Injures a Veterinarian.”)

For example, the owners of a dog that bit a Georgia kennel attendant were not held liable. The court ruled that the attendant knew the risk—the owners had told the kennel that the dog might bite, and a sign on the dog's cage said "will bite." (Lundy v. Stuhr, 363 S.E.2d 343 (Ga. App. 1987). Another reason that professionals cannot sue owners is that they accept responsibility for controlling a dog. A Minnesota court ruled that a groomer had control over a dog and so was a "keeper" under the state's dog-bite law—and unable to collect for damages. (Carlson v. Friday, 694 N.W.2d 828 (Minn. App. 2005).)

Similarly, someone who has agreed to look after a dog may not be able to sue if injured by the dog. For example, a Connecticut man who took care of a friend's dog for a week sued after the dog bit him. The court ruled that the man had assumed responsibility for the dog and could not sue the owner. The dog-bite statute, the court said, was intended to protect people who are not in a position to control a dog. (Murphy v. Buonato, 696 A.2d 320 (Conn. 1997).)

This rule applies only if the worker has taken control over the dog and can presumably take measures to reduce the risk of injury. In one case, for example, a dog bit a groomer before the groomer had decided whether or not to accept custody of the dog (which was growling at her). The court ruled that she had not taken the risk of injury. (Prays v. Perryman, 213 Cal. App. 3d 1133 (1989).)

In some states with dog-bite statutes, this defense can't be used. (For example, see Pulley v. Malek, 495 N.E.2d 402 (Ohio 1986).) In other words, the owner is liable even if the injured person knowingly risked the injury. For example, in an Iowa case, the owners of a dog that bit a groomer were not allowed to argue that the groomer had taken on the risk of injury. The Iowa Supreme Court ruled that under the dog-bite statute, the only defense available to a dog owner is that the injured person was "doing an unlawful act" when injured. (Collins v. Kenealy, 492 N.W.2d 679 (Iowa 1992).)

Similarly, an Oklahoma appeals court ruled that the owners of a dog could be liable, under the state's dog-bite law, for the injury the dog caused to an animal clinic employee who was bitten by the dog while walking it. In its discussion, the court did not mention the injured person's assumption of the risk; a dissenting judge opined that this defense should have applied. (Hass v. Money, 849 P.2d 1106 (Okla. Civ. App. 1993).)

Some other states (California and Illinois, for example) do allow this defense in lawsuits based on the state's dog-bite statute. Some state courts have yet to consider the question. (Nelson v. Hall, 211 Cal. Rptr. 668 (Cal. App.1985); Vanderlei v. Heideman, 403 N.E.2d 756 (Ill. App 1980).

Was the Injured Person Trespassing?

In most states, dog owners aren't liable to trespassers who are injured by a dog. But the rules are convoluted and vary significantly from state to state.

In general, a trespasser is someone who wasn't invited on the property. Unless you warn people off your property with signs or locked gates, you are considered to have given an "implied invitation" to members of the public to approach your door on common errands—for example, to try to sell you something or ask directions.

Without at least some such implied invitation, someone who ventures onto private property is a trespasser. In a Nebraska case, a child visiting relatives stuck her hand through a fence to pet the neighbor's dog; she was found to be a trespasser. (Kenney v. Barna, 341 N.W.2d 901 (Neb. 1983).) Similarly, a court ruled that a ten-year-old who climbed over a fence to retrieve a ball and was bitten by a dog was a trespasser, and could not sue the dog's owners for his injury. (Alvin v. Simpson, 491 N.W.2d 604 (Mich. App. 1992).)

A general rule is that a dog owner who could reasonably expect someone to be on the property is probably going to be liable for any injury that person suffers. This rule is particularly important when it comes to children. Even a dog owner who does not explicitly invite a neighborhood child onto the property will probably be held liable if it's reasonable to know the child is likely to wander in—and dogs are a big attraction to children. In other words, there is a legal responsibility either to prevent the child from coming on the property or to keep the dog from injuring the child.

Specific legal rules that determine whether or not a dog owner is liable to an injured trespasser vary from state to state. Here are the basics.

Dog-bite statutes. Most dog-bite statutes do not allow trespassers to sue for an injury. The owner is liable only if the person injured by a dog was in a public place or "lawfully in a private place." That means that the injured person must have a good reason for being where he was. Mail carriers, for example, are always covered. Police officers performing their official duties are not considered trespassers, either. ⁴¹ Neither is anyone else who has an invitation, express or implied, to be on the dog owner's property.

EXAMPLE: A woman going door to door to take a survey was let into a house, where she was knocked down and bitten by a dog. The front yard of the house wasn't fenced, although a cartoon-like "Trespassers Will Be Eaten" sign was displayed in the window. An Arizona appeals court ruled that the survey-taker entered the property with the implied consent of the residents, so she could sue under Arizona's dog-bite statute, which applies only if the person injured is "lawfully" in a private place. (Jones v. Manhart, 585 P.2d 1250 (Ariz. 1978).)

Common law rule. If the state follows the common law rule—which imposes liability on a dog owner who knew a dog was dangerous—technically, the fact that the injured person was trespassing doesn't matter. So if the common law rule were applied strictly, if you know your dog is dangerous, and it bites a burglar who breaks into your house, you're liable. In practice, however, courts and juries are reluctant to hold a dog owner liable to a trespasser. Some courts have modified the rule to say that a dog owner, even one who knows a dog is dangerous, isn't liable if the dog hurts a trespasser. Some say that the common law rule doesn't apply to trespassers if the dog is a guard dog. (Mech v. Hearst Corp., 64 Md. App. 422 (1985).)

Negligence. The states don't agree on whether or not an injured trespasser who sues a dog owner for negligence (unreasonable carelessness) can win.

In some states, an injured trespasser can sue and win if the dog owner acted unreasonably under the circumstances. Other states still use an old legal rule that landowners are liable to injured trespassers only if the landowner, after knowing the trespasser was on the land, intentionally harmed the trespasser or failed to warn of the danger. There is an important exception to this rule: generally, a landowner has a duty to protect trespassing children, who don't have the judgment to avoid dangerous situations. (DeRobertis v. Randazzo, 94 N.J. 144 (1983).)

Reminder. Injured people can and do sue on more than one legal theory. So someone might raise two claims in a lawsuit, one under a state's dog-bite statute and one based on the common law theory.

Was the Injured Person Breaking the Law?

Some dog-bite statutes apply only if the victim can prove he wasn't at fault. The victim may have to show he was "peaceably conducting himself," for example. Iowa's law applies only if the injured person can show he or she wasn't doing something illegal that contributed to the injury. The dog owner doesn't have to prove that the injured person was doing something illegal.

Was the Injured Person Careless?

In most states, a victim whose own carelessness contributed to the injury is entitled to less money from the dog owner. The amount is reduced in proportion to the victim's fault. So a victim who is 20% at fault receives 20% less than if the dog owner were completely responsible for the injury. This doctrine is called "comparative fault."

EXAMPLE: When Phyllis visits her new neighbors, she sees a "Beware of Dog" sign on the fence around their front yard, but opens the gate and goes in anyway. Their dog rushes out and bites her ankle, leading to $300 in medical bills. When Phyllis sues the dog's owners in small claims court, the judge gives her only $150, ruling that Phyllis, by ignoring the sign, was half at fault for the injury. The owners were half at fault, too, because they kept an aggressive dog in an unlocked yard where visitors might be expected to enter.

Exceptions to the rule. In a few states, a victim who contributed to the injury even the least bit may recover nothing from the dog owner. (Learn about "contributory negligence.”)

by: Mary Randolph, J.D.

I like the signs that say, " Life's Better with a Siberian Husky" or "My Siberian Husky is friendly...Beware of Owner"

Edited June 14, 2012 by AttilaVikingsDemon

[Ravenwolf]

Although I don't know that "Dog on Duty" is a good sign - it implies the dog is working, thus a guard/watch dog, and if you live somewhere that has special guidelines for guard dogs that could leave a loophole, I think.

[Storm Angel n Auroras Mum]

well, we and the inlaws both have little beware of the dog signs on our gates.

noone reads them, how do I know?

Because dumbasses still enter the gates!!-not anymore as I have a bike lock on the gate and its locked all the time,

[joshmp5]

Signs on the front of my home "This home is Protected by Smith & Wesson" and "Trespassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again."

[Sarah]

our house needs a sign saying Never mind the dogs - beware of the Wife!

[loops]

Maybe... 'Don't beware the huskies, beware the owners'...

I've seen this one before, but the word 'huskies' was replaced by 'dog' lol

whenever i walk into st helens town i pass a house with " sod the dog beware of the kids" on a sign lmao

[Ravenwolf]

The one I'd like to get says "Beware of Dog - Cat Can't be Trusted Either."

[Siberian Shadow]

I just went with the "Beware of the dog" sign on the gate.Thought it would work as a visual deterrent.

There are also larger signs stating guard dogs on premises,that were here long before we were.

I wouldn't ever specify that huskies lived here,mind you if they heard my oldest dog Hachi making noises,they would be terrified as he growls very loudly and sounds like a lion!!Lol!!

[frankmayfield]

I have been looking all over the internet for the last hour. The whole beware sign increases liability appears to be an urban legend.

[Andy]

I have 2 signs on the gate leading to the back of the house.

"Dogs Running Free"

and

"Caution Guard dog"

[Mollys Dad]

I just went with the "Beware of the dog" sign on the gate.Thought it would work as a visual deterrent.

There are also larger signs stating guard dogs on premises,that were here long before we were.

I wouldn't ever specify that huskies lived here,mind you if they heard my oldest dog Hachi making noises,they would be terrified as he growls very loudly and sounds like a lion!!Lol!!

Hachi - great name! Inspired by the film?

[Siberian Shadow]

Yes, he was called Havoc when we rescued him from a life of neglect,we looked after him for a short time until he went to be fostered and adopted (we were not supposed to have another dog!!) We watched his progress and his adoption failed,after lots of deliberating,we decided to adopt him. The first thing I did was to change his name as I felt it was very negative and wanted to give him a new start. He waits for me all the time,follows me everywhere . I thought the name Hachi from the film was a very fitting name for him.