Be aware not beware!

I've posted about this before, but as we have loads of new members I thought it might be worth a re-cap.
http://www.govyou.co.uk/beware-of-the-dog-sign-laws/
Pete

Interesting... I would never consider putting a sign up like that as I'm aware of houses being broken into and dogs being stolen... I wouldn't personally advertise the fact I have a dog for that reason. Maybe silly.

That's interesting. We were advised to put up a sign to protect innocent visitors who might otherwise have popped in through the back gate not to do so when we had Bobbert, who would have bitten (then run away!). We've not taken it down because... well, I guess I've not thought to. Maybe we should.

I have a notice on my gate that says "Caution dogs running free" and
it has a picture of a Staffie on it.  My logic is that if anyone is afraid
of dogs and would be scared witless by a staffie greeting, they can
choose whether to come in or not - especially if they are trying to sell
me something.

I haven't said that visitors should beware of my dog but they have
been warned that a dog, a Staffie, is about.

Don't know whether this would make any difference!

Must admit though, my boy would scare most people so I also have a
lock on the gate if he is out playing so nobody can innocently wander
in.

Thanks for posting this Pete, it really is a law of words.

Actually, it's not that simple. From the website...

If such a sign is on display when the dog attacks a trespasser, then its owner is liable for prosecution, because it could be argued that by displaying the sign they knew the dog was dangerous.

That's not actually true. Evidence of a dog being dangerous is the dog behaving in a dangerous manner. A sign on its own is highly unlikely to be used as a factor in the prosecution any more than having a sticker saying "If you can read this you're losing the race!" in the back window of your car would be evidence of dangerous driving.

However, if the dog attacks an intruder when no sign is visible then the court would decree that the owner was unaware of the threat of the animal, and is therefore not liable for court action.

This certainly isn't true and is very bad advice. What would happen is that any evidence to demonstrate that the owner knew their dog was dangerous would be taken into consideration. Not putting a sign up will not render the owner exempt from the law if somebody gets bitten on their property.

The upshot is, if you have a dog liable to attack and it has a history of being out of control and you have a sign then theoretically that sign could be used as a small part of the evidence to convince a court that you knew the dog was dangerous. Maybe. Other than that, it doesn't matter what your sign says.

Ah hence my words "Law of words". It's very vague and a strong argument could be put either way. If you think about it, an oven is hot therefore should all ovens have a warning on them in case an intruder should happen to search it looking for valuables. And if they were hurt with or without a sign saying "Caution Hot" on it, would you be liable

Dogs are a bit different in that their history is taken into account as well as what happened at the time of the incident. With other factors it's normally issues of intent. So if you have a roll of barbed wire in your shed and an intruder cuts their hand on it you're not going to be successfully sued or be convicted of a crime. But if you put barbed wire on top of your wall and an intruder cuts their hand on it you'll be stuffed in both criminal and civil courts.

With dogs it's highly unlikely you'd be convicted of anything if the injury the intruder sustained was proportionate to their invasion of your property. If a burglar breaks into your house and attacks you and he gets bitten, or even seriously hurt by your dog you should be fine as far as the law goes. But if someone takes a short-cut across your garden and gets their arm ripped off then you've got problems.

The issue with the dog sign is that it's not evidence of anything other than the owner's opinion, and unless its backup up by other incidents of the dog attacking it would be irrelevant. Furthermore, any attempt to bring a sign as evidence could be countered very easily by the defence saying their client just put it up as a deterrent, or as a joke.

Of course, you need to ask yourself what benefit you'd actually get from a Beware of the Dog sign in the first place. With regard to Staffies I agree with an earlier poster, you're much more likely to end up having your dog stolen with a sign like that rather than it being used in court against you!

I agree that it is a grey area, but it takes a bullet out of DDA gun.
Pete

I looked at the meaning of the word 'beware' :-  ""be on your guard, watch out, look out, mind out, be wary, be careful, be cautious, be on the lookout, be on the alert, keep your eyes open, keep a sharp lookout, be on the qui vive;"

I can't see where it says anything about danger so I'm not going to take my sign down. It's there to stop people leaving my gate open allowing Milo to run out onto the road.

Its not grey area at all, you have no protection in law if your dog attacks someone on your land. the only time is when they are breaking into your house and then the dog has permission to follow instinct and protect. no matter what sign you have if your dog bites someone in your garden your liable.... even if its fenced off with no gate...shitty yup but thats the current law...period

Jellytot wrote:Interesting... I would never consider putting a sign up like that as I'm aware of houses being broken into and dogs being stolen... I wouldn't personally advertise the fact I have a dog for that reason.  Maybe silly.

I completely agree with you here Jo, wouldn't advertise the fact we have a dog anyway.