I'm aware that this topic keeps raising it's ugly head & I did promise to do some investigating & find out the definitive answer. For those in the dark, there has been much talk of whether a 'Beware of the dog sign' is an admission of knowledge that your dog is dangerous/liable to bite someone & makes you more liable to prosecution/payment of damages should someone trespassing upon your private property then be attacked by your dog.

Today, I had a long chat with the Crown Prosecution Service. The prosecuters sit in the office next door, so I interrupted a very important meeting & demanded to know the answer so that I could pass it on to you folks. Luckily, they took it on the chin & proceeded to get quite excited about finding the answer. As no such case regarding dog signs was in existence, they discussed it using other similar cases for guidance, their own knowledge of the law & their own prosecuting experience.

After a long debate with the learned folk and much talk of: "...well, I think you'll find in Smellybotton versus Stinkybutt that the appeal was dismissed as despite chasing the postman down the street, the rottweiler was proved to be a friendly dog that just wanted to play. The Judge held that just because the postman fell over in his haste to get away, this was not the rottweiler's fault" (and that was an actual case) We dragged up similar relevant cases in books & on the system & the jury came back unanimous with thus:

If you put a sign upon your garden gate forewarning people that you have dogs that you need to beware of, or are running free, in conjunction with the usual 'Do not enter' underneath, you have gone over & above your duty of care to advise the general public of the dangers in entering your private property. A 'Beware of the Dog' sign does not further your liability it is the entirely the opposite. Of course there are some situations i.e. when a child wanders in not having understood the sign when you MAY be made to pay damages as a result of them being injured on your property, but they were insistent that if this were the case then the persons in charge of the child would also be asked questions about THEIR duty of care & why the child wasn't supervised etc. This may result in the case being dismissed.
In the worst scenario, the sign would be used as a mitigating circumstance, i.e. to lower the damages you would have to pay someone because, due to the existence of such a sign, you can prove beyond all reasonable doubt that you have not been negligent in your duty of care.

Please note: There were NO cases in existence in all the case law books available (published 2002) or on the computer (updated bi-anually) about a 'Beware of the dog sign' furthering your liability.

The prosecutor's were very interested to know how the rumour got started. They also asked that if there were still people insisting that dog signs make you liable, to ask those people to provide the name of the case they are referring to or to provide their source of their information. Unbelievably, they were quite keen to research it further if necessary, which is extremely generous of them considering they are extremely busy peeps & their job is to prosecute people like us - not help us out!

Hope that answers a few questions. I've still got my 'Beware' sign up!

Lady G

Thank you very much for that. I'm pretty sure I read it in a magazine but honestly can't really remember!
Bec

<<<The prosecutor's were very interested to know how the rumour got started.>>>

Maybe from our friends across the pond?
Just a thought, as in the US, the laws can be and most usually do differ from ours. Home/Pet insurance over there has also some differences, ie, some people cannot get home insurance if they own 'what the ins' companies think' are agressive breeds! I'm also sure that I've read somewhere (US dog site), that because of their 'beware' sign, the ins' company would not insure.

Bump

Very interesting Lady G.

How about a sign which says:

"Don't bother trying to sue if I bite you. You won't have a leg to stand on!!"

It's late, the beer has been flowing ... that's my excuse. :D

lol that would be a great sign!! Must remember that one :)

I am so going to make a sign that says that !!! What a brilliant idea!! hehehe!!

Take care.

Lisa

It really is quite ridiculous isn't it? It grates me something rotten that you're liable at all when the silly idiots are trespassing on private property anyway. I've always had a sign on my gate, yet I've still had arguments with dim witted delivery men who seem intent on sneaking around the back to leave parcels. Of course, they are immediately confronted with an indignant dobermann, roaring his displeasure into their faces as they try to undo the gate and it usually sends them running for cover.

What really takes the biscuit is when they then deliberately ignore the sign on the front door telling them I'm a "Night shift worker - do not disturb" & hammer away until I answer in my nightie & try to complain about my 'dangerous dog'!!! The only satisfaction I get is in knowing that the 'dobermann experience' was nothing compared to what they get dealt by the dobermann's owner.

One of my favourite signs (although I don't have one) is

"The remains of any trespassers will be prosecuted"

Christine

Now THAT sign really is the mutt's nuts! :D

I'm investing in one immediately.