Beware of dog sign pointless?

blaaah

Hi guys,

Looking for correct legal advise on this example and also benefits/disadvantages of dog signs in general.

I just recently had a chat with 2 friends about my 'beware of dogs' sign which is up above the garage doors (3 dogs have freedom of the garage and backyard which intersect), they were telling me that the sign (which other ppl advised me to put up) is not going to protect you from any liabilty ie. burgular gets over the garage wall and tries to get into your house, but is bit on the ass lets say by one of my dogs to stop him from entering, then this burgular can indeed sue me regardless of the sign and my dog would also be put down?

Can anyone shed some light on this topic? tbh i'm rather confused becuase of ppl advising me differently.

Thanks.

Our man in Havana

It is like any disclaimer, legally pointless.

deadwood

...besides, most dogs can't read.

Farcear

Isn't there something re. occupier's liability and a duty to warn of hazards?

Is a dog a "danger" per the Irish Act? (Anyone have caselaw?) -- http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1995/en/act/pub/0010/print.html#sec4

Wording of the Sign may be important (UK Law) (Do *not* phrase it so as to admit liability.) -- http://www.bullbreedadvisoryservice.com/occupiers-act-1957.html


Edit: Actually, interesting older thread on-point here -- http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055116811

Maybe the new Criminal Law Defence and the Dwelling Act 2011 has modified the position?

mrjoneill

Seems to me to be an admission of liability or awareness of the fact and a burglar becomes one after the fact not before, lol.

Zambia

Once again has an Irish burglar ever sued and won a case like this? As long as your fence is high enough and your yard secure how could they have a case?

Kevtherev

Might not help you avoid liability if someone gets bitten, however it might stop a child who accidentally kicks his ball over your wall from following it in and getting his face bitten off.

valleyoftheunos

Under occupier's liability you owe a duty to all entrants, including trespassers not to intentionally cause them harm, no sign or notice can relieve you of that duty. The question then is are your dogs kept there to cause harm to any trespassers?

Having said all that I don't know of any case where such a trespasser has been successful in winning damages and I imagine it would be difficult in all but exceptional circumstances.

Discodog

The usual advice is that you should not have a sign saying "Beware of the Dog" or any wording that suggests that the dog is dangerous. But an "I live here" sign or a "Warning Dog Loose" sign informs people that you have a dog which might be seen as a deterrent to thieves.

Procrastastudy

Your duty ref trespassers is not to act with 'reckless disregard'. What that means hasn't exactly been settled on - See Binchy - How Reckless may an Occupier be? Clarus Press (You'll get it on a google search).

One could argue that the sign was evidence that you were not acting with reckless disregard - so in my opinion, for what its worth, the signs are useful. At worst they aren't doing any harm. See point above ref admitting liability though.

Interestingly someone mentioned children - some commentators argue that if a child was involved a situation very similar McNamara v ESB would still apply - see Healy.

I think where people get confused as say - signs not worth the metal they are printed on - is that you can not waive your duty below that of one not to act wit reckless disregard.

On burglars suing in Ireland - there is a case where a guy broke into a factory and successfully sued but the name escapes me. As I don't have to worry about OLA again for another 2 years I'm not going to look it up!

The position on trespasser engaged in a criminal act is they con not sue under the act unless that bar would be unjust.

castie

If it happens tell them you took a bite out of him yourself

delta_bravo

Funny one my parents told me was that when they moved into their home in the late 80s they put a "beware of dog" sign on the side entrance door. They didn't have a dog but I suppose it was to deter thieves.

A few months later the dog warden calls round and demands we remove the sign as we didn't have a dog. Always found it a bit strange

CTU_Agent

A recent court case ruled in favour of a homeowner whos dog bit a leaflet delivery person.

The leaflet guy placed his hand inside the letter box and was allegedly bitten by the dog. The homeowner denied his dog had caused any harm, and the court ruled that the leaflet delivery had no permission or legal right to place his hand inside the letter box and therefore the homeowner had no case to answer for.

Seems like this case could be used as a marker for intruder cases where a dog protects the home and stops an intruder.

Discodog

delta_bravo wrote: »

A few months later the dog warden calls round and demands we remove the sign as we didn't have a dog. Always found it a bit strange

I will add that one to the long list of ridiculous demands, made by Dog Wardens, that they have no authority to make. Dog Wardens assume that they can make it up as they go along.

3rdDegree

To be fair, if I saw a sign that said "Beware of dog", I'd probably steer clear. But if I saw one that said "Loose dog", I might think, hey, a dog that's up for anything....now this could be interesting.

3rdDegree

delta_bravo wrote: »

A few months later the dog warden calls round and demands we remove the sign as we didn't have a dog. Always found it a bit strange

That's bizarre! What business is it of the dog warden what signs you put up? If you had a sign up saying "Beware Pixies!", would you get a visit from the Pixie warden? (if you do, get her number).

I'm amazed by that story!

Discodog

In the past year I have heard of Dog Wardens claiming that they have a right of access to homes, that they demand that someone rehomes their dog out of the area, that various breeds are dangerous etc etc.

Ellis Dee

I doubt whether any sign guarantees anything in a court of law, no matter how much thought has gone into its wording. But anyone with any common sense who sees a "Beware of dog" sign would certainly at least exercise some care.

Even more problematic are signs that are based on semiotics. Some time ago, I was walking my dog, whose fur is white, in a place where there was a sign like this:




An officious-looking type approached me and snarled: "Don't you understand what that sign says?"

"Yes," I replied, "It says 'No black dogs'. Are you some kind of racist? Shame on you!"

Discodog

Ellis Dee wrote: »

"Yes," I replied, "It says 'No black dogs'. Are you some kind of racist? Shame on you!"

Could be worse - lots of these around Galway