I am not an attorney. So take this for what it is worth
It seems to me that as dog owners we should all carry homeowners or renters insurance. We should have a general liability umbrella as well. People can sue anyone in the US and for the most part these policies will cover you.
From the article I took away two major concepts that I am going to try and employ at my house:
1st: "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."
So if I post a no trespassing or private property sign on my access ways at my house. I am saying that I do not expect a person to enter that way without my permission. I also have to think about kids and consider will they read those signs? No they wont! So I need to make sure that those gates are secured/locked. Remember a sign saying dog can be inviting to kids. So the message I want being conveyed is that you do not have my invitation.
2nd: " 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."
The article goes on to say that this doesn't quite happen in practice but it's still something that we need to consider. So, I'm not going to post any Beware of Dog, My toy poodle will eat you signs. It is well documented that all dogs can bite people but it is also equally documented that there is a "banned dog list". When buying Kaeda I thought about this when purchasing my liability insurance. I found a company that doesn't have akita on their list. At the time of purchasing the policy, I had to have Kaeda listed by breed on the policy. So I had her listed as "Japanese Akita". The insurance company ask what's the difference? I pointed out that Kaeda has a pedigree( akiho) that wont let her bed registered in the US as an Akita (AKC). I emailed them a quick article explaining how they are two different breeds outside the US. This is important because, she is a Japanese Akita and is not a dangerous dog. I am not sure if this would work in court but I don't think it would really hurt either.
We also need to be careful what we say on the internet. I've seen a few craptastic post on this forum and other places, asking about how certain dogs do in certain situations. I own a mustang and on one of the mustang forums as member bragged about racing his car on the track then taking it to the dealer for warranty work. The dealer used the forums for their defense.
Sean, thanks for your posts too. Lots to think about.
I will likely change out my signs. I have 1/2 acre, but the whole thing is fenced in; just to get to the door or even the garage, you have to come in the gate. The dogs are never out unless we are home, but we never leave the gate open, so sometimes it's hard to tell if a dog is out (Toby's lazy and doesn't always go to the gate). I just have a standard beware of dog because I want people aware that there are dogs in here and they should not open the gate. Some proselytizers do come in anyway. Once some Mormons, who told me rather sanctimoniously that he'd happily "get bit if it meant saving a soul." I wanted to bite him for that! Luckily that was when I had my GSD who tracked the guy to the door barking, but did not bite.
I've had a talk with the meter reader, and we've come to an agreement. He honks his horn, and the waits, and if no one (canine or human) he knows he can come in.
But I would like to have signs. The people with mastiffs down the street have the same type of sign as the GSD above. I might just get some "Dogs on Premises" signs to replace my beware of dog. Or maybe no trespassing--that's what most people here have on their dog yards, and I suspect now it is for legal reasons.
I'm lucky that my insurance does not say anything about dog breeds. I have Farmers insurance. They've had to pay out on a dog related claim (when my GSD destroyed the fender of my friend's car) and they said they take it by incident, rather than by breed, and they do consider property damage different than injuring a person.
Under the common law rule, a dog's owner or keeper is liable for injuries the dog causes only if the owner knew or had reason to know that the dog was likely to cause that kind of injury. So if your dog tries to bite someone, from that moment on you're on notice that the dog is dangerous, and you will be liable if the dog later bites someone.
The common law rule comes into play only if the state has no dog-bite statute or if the statute doesn't apply—for example, if the statute covers only bites, and the dog caused the injury by knocking the person down.
A dog owner may be able to escape liability by proving that the injured person provoked the injury, or voluntarily and knowingly risked being injured by the dog.
The logic of this legal doctrine is straightforward, if not unquestionable. This rule allows a person who owns a dog to assume, until there is some concrete indication to the contrary, that the dog isn't dangerous. But an owner who knows a dog poses a particular kind of risk to people must take action to prevent the foreseeable injury—or be prepared to pay for it.
The common law rule is often called the "one-bite" rule, which is a bit of a misnomer. It implies that every dog gets one "free" bite (free for its owner), and from then on the owner is on notice that the dog is dangerous. It's true that if a dog bites someone, its owner is definitely on notice that the dog is dangerous; but less serious behavior is also enough, legally, to give the owner the knowledge the law looks for. For example, if a dog growls or snaps at people, the owner knows (or should know) that the dog may cause injury. If the dog does hurt someone, the owner will be liable, even for the first bite.
The test for liability is the same no matter how the injury was caused: Did the owner know of the dog's dangerous tendency? For example, if a dog jumps up and knocks someone down, the question is: Did the owner know of the dog's tendency to knock people down? If so, he's liable for it.
If the owner denies responsibility and the dispute ends up in court (most don't), the judge or jury will have to decide whether or not the owner should have known the dog was likely to hurt someone. Here are some factors that courts take into account when deciding: [...]
Warning signs. Don't worry that putting up a "Beware of Dog" sign is tantamount to admitting that your dog is a menace, landing you in bigger trouble if the dog does ever hurt someone. First of all, the sign will help avoid bites—which is far preferable than winning a legal battle over a bite later. Second, if you think your dog might hurt someone, there's almost certainly already more evidence of the dog's dangerousness than the fact that you put up a warning sign.
TERMINOLOGY NOTE Judges often say that, to be liable under the common law rule, an owner must have known the dog was "vicious" or had a "vicious propensity." The term, as it's used in this context, simply means dangerous—likely to hurt someone, even if by being overly friendly. It has nothing to do with a dog's temperament.
^^So this would apply to Ahi, for example, who LOVES people but tends to jump on them and could knock them over.
--
I agree with this section, and that is why I have started to consider adding a sign that clearly states that we have "Guard Dogs" and "No Trespassing" (accompanied with locked gates) - if it helps prevent a bite, and it makes it clear people are not welcomed here, someone being bitten by one of my dogs would have to have entered knowing the risk.
This raises an interesting question for me. Tyson technically has a bite history. (For those that missed the story, search for my thread "A word of caution..."). He's not "vicious", nor do I consider him a bite risk in normal situations. His bite came because he was pressured by two vet techs with very poor judgement. IMO, pretty much any dog would have bitten in the situation Tyson did. But legally speaking, he's now more of a liability than other dogs if I'm reading that correctly. Does that mean I need to put signs up on my property?
I've been told to NEVER put any "beware of dog" signs as well. So I have a sign that says, "Caution! Killer Cat!" but it is in German =p.
I'd love to think of something silly for a property sign:
"If you are going to trespass on my property let me know so that I can... ...put my dogs away. ...turn off all security cameras. ...disarm all alarms. ...leave gates unlocked. ...grab a shovel and dig large hole in the yard."
[I made that up just now! It could be a bit more creative though, I think, hmm.] =]
I like the "No Trespassing", "Guard Dogs on Duty" & "Dog on Premises" signs. As well as the "I can make it to the fence in 2.8 seconds, CAN YOU? and the "Never mind the dog, beware of owner".
@dlroberts - If anything, it'll mean to NOT put up any signs on your property unless the signs just imply that there is a dog on the property.
The liability prevention warning signs that work against you and not for you. Does this fall under the "dumb laws" catergory? By having signs that warn people...to PROTECT them and then it back fires? Perhaps just horribly written...
If I am reading all this correctly, I am coming to the conclusion that it's best to do what ever you can to prevent a bite, and if that means putting up a sign warning of the danger of your dog then do it.
If a person gets bit by your dog, and clear warning is given, then the person will have to somehow prove that he was unaware of the danger even tho there is a sign clearly warning of it.
Also, if they are trespassing, it it's clear that they are (locked gates, no trespassing signs), then even if your dog has bitten someone in the past, as far as I can tell, that person will have a hard time suing over injury as they were breaking the law and trespassing.
@Dave, I think, unfortunately, Tyson does have a history of biting now. I don't know what that means in your state. In NM, I know that technically if a dog is considered "dangerous" then you have to have a certain size fence etc. If I understood what my vet told me (and this seems reflected in Brad's post above) the first bite does not make a dog "dangerous," so you're not required to have all that stuff for one bite, but it does demonstrate a history, and if there was another bite, your dog could get the "dangerous" or "vicious" dog label.
My vet said that even injuring another dog is enough to demonstrate history in NM, so Bel's attacks on Toby give her a "history" which means I would be in serious trouble if she ever bit a person.
It's pretty hard to believe the knocking down would count towards this, isn't it? Oskar jumps on people all the time. (Akitas seem to love to get up all close and personal in their greetings) but he's the sweetest, softest dog possible with people.
This all reminds me of the time when a teenager broke into my parent's house and dove in their pool sideways. He broke his neck and was terribly terribly injured. Then his parents sued my parents for the tune of $2m!!!! The pool was a lap pool, and they had signs up that said "no diving" with a picture of someone hitting their head and hurting themselves. The people who sued tried to say that my parents were liable for putting in a dangerous pool in their backyard. My parent's attorneys argued that they had warned anyone in their backyard of the danger of diving in a lap pool. BTW no one mentioned that this kid BROKE INTO their backyard. Long legal battle later, my parent's won the case, and more importantly AAA paid for all the legal costs minus their deductible and DID NOT drop them as their insurance company. The signs saved my parents from that and from their rates going up.
If someone had a dog that has bitten before, reported or not, I WOULD put up a Beware of Dog sign. If your dog knows that they can use their mouth to protect themselves when threatened and shows that they would use their mouth to protect themselves from a stranger or to guard their house, then honestly, it's your responsibility to put up a sign.
@dlroberts I don't know it's a bit of a gray area for you. I'm not sure if Tyson Chicken would bite a trespasser.
@brada1878 I think Luytiy is sign enough personally!!! Maybe you should have adult diaper dispensers on your gate next to the sign? Like the dog poop bag dispensers at parks.
@shikokuspirit I think the guard dog sign should be saved for actual guardian breeds or working dogs. The never mind the dog actually says that the dog is not aggressive. If someone has an aggressive dog, then I would recommend not having that sign. What do you think?
In San Diego, the advice distributed over the news is to not put up 'beware of dog' or even 'my dog can make it to the fence in --- sec, can you?' signs. Instead, it's 'dogs on premise'.
In some areas of soCal, if a dog attacks a cat that wandered into his own confined yard, the dog can be considered a dangerous animal. Majorly stinks.
I don't think I will need a sign for my place. Mika's bark and howl is enough to scare anyone off. She has such an intimidating bark for a 16 lb shiba lol.
I bought a cute sign a while back at the 2010 pet expo that says "Caution Area Patrolled by Shiba Inu"
The owner of a dog shall ensure that such dog shall not: (i) bite a person or persons; (ii) do any other act that injures a person; (iii) chase or otherwise threaten a person whether on the property of the owner or not, unless the person chased or threatened is a intruder on the property of the owner; (iv) bite, or chase other animals, livestock, bicycles, automobiles, wildlife or other vehicles;
So, it seems that a dog can't bite someone regardless of circumstance, but they can chase or threaten an intruder. There are also special rules for "Aggressive Dogs" which are defined as follows:
“Aggressive Dog” means any dog, whatever its age, whether on public or private property which has: (i) caused the demise of a person; or (ii) without provocation caused the demise of a domestic animal while off the property of the property owner; or (iii) Without provocation, chased, injured or bitten a person or any other domestic animal; or (iv) Without provocation, threatened or created the reasonable apprehension of a threat to a person or to any other domestic animal; or (v) Without provocation, damaged or destroyed any public or private property; or (vi) Which represents a continuing threat of serious harm to persons or animals.
So, here it seems that a dog is not considered aggressive if it was provoked. Does intruding count as provoking? It also seems that your dog can kill a domestic animal on its own property without consequence. Interesting. If a Bylaw Officer deems your dog to be aggressive, they can order it euthanized, or return it to you, in which case they impose conditions such as muzzle requirements or leash length limits or mandatory rehabilitation program. Then you have to pay a special aggressive dog license.
Damn. Bel falls into a lot of problem areas in Heidi's list. I guess I'm just seeing more and more reasons why my little Bel is quite a liability. Not that I don't already know that, but I guess this is the summer of that really starting to reach the tipping point.
[...]The same goes for warning signs. Someone who ignores a clear, prominently posted "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 severely bitten by a German shepherd that most definitely was on duty. He sued but lost. A court concluded that he "voluntarily left his place of safety" and knowingly took the risk of injury. [...]
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 speak with you, 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 one case from Nebraska, a child visiting relatives stuck her hand through a fence to pet the neighbor's dog; she was found to be a trespasser. 39 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. 40
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. 42
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. Many courts have softened the rule to avoid unjust results. Some 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. 43 Some say that the common law rule doesn't apply to trespassers if the dog is a guard dog. 44
Another way courts get around an unfair result is by allowing the dog owner to charge that the victim, by trespassing, either was partly to blame (see "Was the Injured Person Careless?" below) or knowingly took the risk of injury (see discussion above). If the dog owner can prove either of those circumstances, liability may be reduced or eliminated altogether.
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. 45
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.
@jujee - AND Kyuubi! He may not be "aggressive" but he is a FANTASTIC Alert Dog! He does kinda "guard" the property by investigating and "big dog" barking at unfamilar noises or strangers (my brother already has confused his bark with Shoushuus! I'm like, "No, that's Kyuubi - the PUPPY!"). He is happy and relaxed during the daylight hours but at night he is "on guard/on alert" and highly persistent if something isn't quite right or a stranger walks on to or near our property. Once he deems "a stranger" not a threat then he relaxes and does his own thing (whatever that is).
@ShikokuSpirit - haha yeah he has a really deep bark for a little boy! The thing at home is that he usually isn't as "on guard" like Mika is. Mika will usually get him riled up. She is more prone to barking a little noises that she deemed is not right. But when Kyuubi does start barking first we are kind of more alert than we are when Mika starts.
Well the good news is that the two webpages that were cited seem to have very similar information. I think what we should do is create a sticky post of "advice" that sites both Common Law, Letter of the Law, and the spirit of the law examples. We can then have people reply with what each state does and where to look it up. Man I might as well write a JACA Quarterly Article on the subject as well.
@Brad the Nolo article is the same as the other article. Any idea what the source is for this article?
Also I found this in the same nolo article:
"The "business pursuits" exclusion. All insurance policies contain exclusions, clauses that say specific kinds of incidents aren't covered. Because homeowner's insurance is supposed to insure homes, not businesses, many homeowner's policies have a "business pursuits" exclusion. Such policies don't cover claims that arise from a homeowner's business activities. The exclusion may apply when an accident happens in the home even if the business conducted there is only a part-time activity. EXAMPLE: An Oklahoma man found his homeowner's insurance didn't cover him when a potential buyer was bitten while looking at a litter of St. Bernard puppies, which he kept at his home. The business pursuits exclusion applied, a court ruled, even though the man's primary occupation was as a salesman. The business activities in this case went beyond the infrequent sale of a litter of pups: the man had renovated his barn to use it as a kennel, and advertised dogs for sale in the newspaper and on a large sign. 67"
My liability has always told me that as long as it's a hobby. I may call them today and ask again for the exact clause.
I put up a "Guard Dog on Duty" sign when I bought my new house, since I live in the city with rifraf occasionally coming through. I did worry how my neighbors would react though. Would they think badly of their new neighbor? Would they automatically avoid me and my "guard dogs" (which are greyhounds btw, lol)? Would they think negatively about my breed? Would they think I was some slouchy, irresponsible dog owner who didn't socialize or train their dogs, so they just threw up a sign instead b/c I was lazy?
Does anyone else worry about how their signs make them look to other people? Or am I just neurotic? LOL.
I ended up putting several No Trespassing signs up, so we are not liable - fortunately Washington State laws are pretty specific. I also put up Caution Dogs at Play signs, it doesn't have the negative connotation of Beware of Dog. Inu would bite if he was cornered and provoked, but he is covered under the state law for that. My biggest concern is someone trying to steal them. Everyone asks if Inu is part wolf and then most people seem kinda wary of him. If that keeps them from poking their fingers through the fence then good.
On the drive home from my sister's house in Pennsylvania, on the state road, we go by a house with a HUGE sign- 5 or 6 feet tall- with large lettering and photos of the 2 dogs in question righ ton it. It says NO TRESPASSING, BEWARE OF DOGS!! WE BITE!!! Its certainly clear in meaning, and I laugh cause it is SO over the top.
Most of the stories people here about outrageous torts suits are actually false. Also, at least one of the stories that partially true is actually a actually settlement that occurred back when California changed the legal standard for property liability to trespassers from willful or wanton action to "reasonable care." People weren't certain what reasonable care meant in the context of a trespasser, so they settled. However, based on case law it appears that it's actually a sliding scale---reasonableness for a guest is different from reasonableness for a trespasser. Also, another thing to remember is that anything that's not settled tends to go to a jury of people who think of trespassers just the way that you and I do. Thus they are unlikely to return a verdict in favor of a burglar. Furthermore appellate courts are very reluctant to overturn jury verdicts, so you're unlikely to see courts stepping in unless there is something other than the jury verdict being contested.
Just thought I'd point this stuff out because I'm seeing a lot of false information on this thread. As a note, however, I would like to point out that I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice (I'm just a law student and all of this comes from my torts professor ). If you need legal advice, speak to a lawyer, like Brad did. Tort law differs from state to state and only a lawyer licensed to practice in your state can give you legal advice.
Our decision to add these sighs had less to do with the legal aspects of keeping guard dogs and more to do with simply keeping people safe. Since that's our first and most important goal - to prevent people from getting hurt. Reducing liability and such is smart, but if we can reduce the chances of someone getting hurt to begin with then that's the better plan.
Bumping this because we just had a scary incident. We have one sign up on the gate, a generic beware of dog sign. I was at school, and my husband was home, and he'd just let the dogs in (thankfully) when someone knocked on the door and the dogs went nuts. Knocking on the door is a HUGE deal, because you have to through the fenced in yard to get to the door, so no one EVER comes here unannounced.
My husband started to open the door, and the guy already had the screen door open, and was reaching, stupidly, for the regular door. Oskar, who is pretty mellow generally, just about broke through to get at the guy (I mean, Oskar only weighs 10 pounds less than my husband!), and my husband had to slam the door and yell at the guy to step away from the door. (The guy was process server, by the way, serving me a subpoena in a court case--and this could have gone through the mail, so I have to admit a part of me hoped this scared the hell out of the guy, which apparently it did, once he was faced with a very upset Akita) Oskar was apparently pretty worked up.
Of course, this was terribly stupid. The sign says beware of dog, and the guy did not honk his car horn at the gate or do anything to get attention before he came through the gate. But if the dogs had been out, but not immediately visible and he had come in, I think Oskar likely would have bit him.
So I'm thinking of a new sign. Apparently "beware of dog" is not enough to warn people not to come into the yard. Maybe I should get one of the "guard dog on duty" signs?
Lisa, that IS a scary situation and is very similar to what happened with me and the neighbor kid. (To refresh everyone's memory, the kid came through the gated fenced yard and opened the screen door and the wood door unannounced and was bitten by Bella.)
Unfortunately, most legal servers are idiots and think that they are above paying attention to signs.
Because of Nola's health issues, I will probably have to put up a sign that specifically states 'Dog Will Bite'... Luckily she is still afraid of unfamiliar people, so I doubt she would ever get close enough to a stranger to snap, but you never know with all of her personality changes. That, and she is NEVER outside unattended now, but she can still be really quick, even as sick as she is. :-/
But from a 'guard dog' sign point... That is probably a good idea since Oskar really seems to get worked up with strangers knocking on the door.
I was just talking to an attorney friend about this, and she said she said while where she's at (East coast) the process servers aren't usually that stupid, anyone going through a gate with a posted beware of dog sign up is doing what is called "assumption of risk" meaning he ignored the signs and if he got bit, it would be his fault. Of course, as we've discussed a lot in this thread, there is variance in local laws.
And I really did think of what happened with you when this happened....I mean what the hell? Except this guy should have had some professional caution, as he was an adult. He was really shook up when he saw how big Oskar was though!
But yes, another sign.
And virtual (ie. non scary stranger) hugs to Nola.
wow... that is scary! Glad no one was bit, and I'm sure it's nice to know Oskar will step up when he needs to.
We have a huge "Guard Dogs on Duty" sign right by the front door. It's silly tho, because if you are that close to our front door and haven't figured out we have guard dogs then you must be too stupid to read a sign anyway.
Comments
This one sounds like what you guys are looking for...
----
It seems to me that as dog owners we should all carry homeowners or renters insurance. We should have a general liability umbrella as well. People can sue anyone in the US and for the most part these policies will cover you.
From the article I took away two major concepts that I am going to try and employ at my house:
1st: "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."
So if I post a no trespassing or private property sign on my access ways at my house. I am saying that I do not expect a person to enter that way without my permission. I also have to think about kids and consider will they read those signs? No they wont! So I need to make sure that those gates are secured/locked. Remember a sign saying dog can be inviting to kids. So the message I want being conveyed is that you do not have my invitation.
2nd: " 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."
The article goes on to say that this doesn't quite happen in practice but it's still something that we need to consider. So, I'm not going to post any Beware of Dog, My toy poodle will eat you signs. It is well documented that all dogs can bite people but it is also equally documented that there is a "banned dog list". When buying Kaeda I thought about this when purchasing my liability insurance. I found a company that doesn't have akita on their list. At the time of purchasing the policy, I had to have Kaeda listed by breed on the policy.
So I had her listed as "Japanese Akita". The insurance company ask what's the difference? I pointed out that Kaeda has a pedigree( akiho) that wont let her bed registered in the US as an Akita (AKC). I emailed them a quick article explaining how they are two different breeds outside the US. This is important because, she is a Japanese Akita and is not a dangerous dog.
I am not sure if this would work in court but I don't think it would really hurt either.
We also need to be careful what we say on the internet. I've seen a few craptastic post on this forum and other places, asking about how certain dogs do in certain situations. I own a mustang and on one of the mustang forums as member bragged about racing his car on the track then taking it to the dealer for warranty work. The dealer used the forums for their defense.
Just more food for thought.
Sean, thanks for your posts too. Lots to think about.
I will likely change out my signs. I have 1/2 acre, but the whole thing is fenced in; just to get to the door or even the garage, you have to come in the gate. The dogs are never out unless we are home, but we never leave the gate open, so sometimes it's hard to tell if a dog is out (Toby's lazy and doesn't always go to the gate). I just have a standard beware of dog because I want people aware that there are dogs in here and they should not open the gate. Some proselytizers do come in anyway. Once some Mormons, who told me rather sanctimoniously that he'd happily "get bit if it meant saving a soul." I wanted to bite him for that! Luckily that was when I had my GSD who tracked the guy to the door barking, but did not bite.
I've had a talk with the meter reader, and we've come to an agreement. He honks his horn, and the waits, and if no one (canine or human) he knows he can come in.
But I would like to have signs. The people with mastiffs down the street have the same type of sign as the GSD above. I might just get some "Dogs on Premises" signs to replace my beware of dog. Or maybe no trespassing--that's what most people here have on their dog yards, and I suspect now it is for legal reasons.
I'm lucky that my insurance does not say anything about dog breeds. I have Farmers insurance. They've had to pay out on a dog related claim (when my GSD destroyed the fender of my friend's car) and they said they take it by incident, rather than by breed, and they do consider property damage different than injuring a person.
Source: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/dog-book/chapter11-4.html
The Common Law "One-Bite" Rule
Under the common law rule, a dog's owner or keeper is liable for injuries the dog causes only if the owner knew or had reason to know that the dog was likely to cause that kind of injury. So if your dog tries to bite someone, from that moment on you're on notice that the dog is dangerous, and you will be liable if the dog later bites someone.
The common law rule comes into play only if the state has no dog-bite statute or if the statute doesn't apply—for example, if the statute covers only bites, and the dog caused the injury by knocking the person down.
A dog owner may be able to escape liability by proving that the injured person provoked the injury, or voluntarily and knowingly risked being injured by the dog.
The logic of this legal doctrine is straightforward, if not unquestionable. This rule allows a person who owns a dog to assume, until there is some concrete indication to the contrary, that the dog isn't dangerous. But an owner who knows a dog poses a particular kind of risk to people must take action to prevent the foreseeable injury—or be prepared to pay for it.
The common law rule is often called the "one-bite" rule, which is a bit of a misnomer. It implies that every dog gets one "free" bite (free for its owner), and from then on the owner is on notice that the dog is dangerous. It's true that if a dog bites someone, its owner is definitely on notice that the dog is dangerous; but less serious behavior is also enough, legally, to give the owner the knowledge the law looks for. For example, if a dog growls or snaps at people, the owner knows (or should know) that the dog may cause injury. If the dog does hurt someone, the owner will be liable, even for the first bite.
The test for liability is the same no matter how the injury was caused: Did the owner know of the dog's dangerous tendency? For example, if a dog jumps up and knocks someone down, the question is: Did the owner know of the dog's tendency to knock people down? If so, he's liable for it.
If the owner denies responsibility and the dispute ends up in court (most don't), the judge or jury will have to decide whether or not the owner should have known the dog was likely to hurt someone. Here are some factors that courts take into account when deciding: [...]
Warning signs. Don't worry that putting up a "Beware of Dog" sign is tantamount to admitting that your dog is a menace, landing you in bigger trouble if the dog does ever hurt someone. First of all, the sign will help avoid bites—which is far preferable than winning a legal battle over a bite later. Second, if you think your dog might hurt someone, there's almost certainly already more evidence of the dog's dangerousness than the fact that you put up a warning sign.
TERMINOLOGY NOTE
Judges often say that, to be liable under the common law rule, an owner must have known the dog was "vicious" or had a "vicious propensity." The term, as it's used in this context, simply means dangerous—likely to hurt someone, even if by being overly friendly. It has nothing to do with a dog's temperament.
^^So this would apply to Ahi, for example, who LOVES people but tends to jump on them and could knock them over.
--
I agree with this section, and that is why I have started to consider adding a sign that clearly states that we have "Guard Dogs" and "No Trespassing" (accompanied with locked gates) - if it helps prevent a bite, and it makes it clear people are not welcomed here, someone being bitten by one of my dogs would have to have entered knowing the risk.
----
So I have a sign that says, "Caution! Killer Cat!" but it is in German =p.
I'd love to think of something silly for a property sign:
"If you are going to trespass on my property
let me know so that I can...
...put my dogs away.
...turn off all security cameras.
...disarm all alarms.
...leave gates unlocked.
...grab a shovel and dig large hole in the yard."
[I made that up just now! It could be a bit more creative though, I think, hmm.] =]
I like the "No Trespassing", "Guard Dogs on Duty" & "Dog on Premises" signs. As well as the "I can make it to the fence in 2.8 seconds, CAN YOU? and the "Never mind the dog, beware of owner".
@dlroberts - If anything, it'll mean to NOT put up any signs on your property unless the signs just imply that there is a dog on the property.
The liability prevention warning signs that work against you and not for you. Does this fall under the "dumb laws" catergory? By having signs that warn people...to PROTECT them and then it back fires? Perhaps just horribly written...
If a person gets bit by your dog, and clear warning is given, then the person will have to somehow prove that he was unaware of the danger even tho there is a sign clearly warning of it.
Also, if they are trespassing, it it's clear that they are (locked gates, no trespassing signs), then even if your dog has bitten someone in the past, as far as I can tell, that person will have a hard time suing over injury as they were breaking the law and trespassing.
----
@Dave, I think, unfortunately, Tyson does have a history of biting now. I don't know what that means in your state. In NM, I know that technically if a dog is considered "dangerous" then you have to have a certain size fence etc. If I understood what my vet told me (and this seems reflected in Brad's post above) the first bite does not make a dog "dangerous," so you're not required to have all that stuff for one bite, but it does demonstrate a history, and if there was another bite, your dog could get the "dangerous" or "vicious" dog label.
My vet said that even injuring another dog is enough to demonstrate history in NM, so Bel's attacks on Toby give her a "history" which means I would be in serious trouble if she ever bit a person.
It's pretty hard to believe the knocking down would count towards this, isn't it? Oskar jumps on people all the time. (Akitas seem to love to get up all close and personal in their greetings) but he's the sweetest, softest dog possible with people.
If someone had a dog that has bitten before, reported or not, I WOULD put up a Beware of Dog sign. If your dog knows that they can use their mouth to protect themselves when threatened and shows that they would use their mouth to protect themselves from a stranger or to guard their house, then honestly, it's your responsibility to put up a sign.
@dlroberts I don't know it's a bit of a gray area for you. I'm not sure if Tyson Chicken would bite a trespasser.
@brada1878 I think Luytiy is sign enough personally!!! Maybe you should have adult diaper dispensers on your gate next to the sign? Like the dog poop bag dispensers at parks.
@shikokuspirit I think the guard dog sign should be saved for actual guardian breeds or working dogs. The never mind the dog actually says that the dog is not aggressive. If someone has an aggressive dog, then I would recommend not having that sign. What do you think?
In some areas of soCal, if a dog attacks a cat that wandered into his own confined yard, the dog can be considered a dangerous animal. Majorly stinks.
I bought a cute sign a while back at the 2010 pet expo that says "Caution Area Patrolled by Shiba Inu"
The owner of a dog shall ensure that such dog shall not:
(i) bite a person or persons;
(ii) do any other act that injures a person;
(iii) chase or otherwise threaten a person whether on the property of the owner or not, unless the person chased or threatened is a intruder on the property of the owner;
(iv) bite, or chase other animals, livestock, bicycles, automobiles, wildlife or other vehicles;
So, it seems that a dog can't bite someone regardless of circumstance, but they can chase or threaten an intruder. There are also special rules for "Aggressive Dogs" which are defined as follows:
“Aggressive Dog” means any dog, whatever its age, whether on public or private property which has:
(i) caused the demise of a person; or
(ii) without provocation caused the demise of a domestic animal while off the property of the property owner; or
(iii) Without provocation, chased, injured or bitten a person or any other domestic animal; or
(iv) Without provocation, threatened or created the reasonable apprehension of a threat to a person or to any other domestic animal; or
(v) Without provocation, damaged or destroyed any public or private property; or
(vi) Which represents a continuing threat of serious harm to persons or animals.
So, here it seems that a dog is not considered aggressive if it was provoked. Does intruding count as provoking? It also seems that your dog can kill a domestic animal on its own property without consequence. Interesting. If a Bylaw Officer deems your dog to be aggressive, they can order it euthanized, or return it to you, in which case they impose conditions such as muzzle requirements or leash length limits or mandatory rehabilitation program. Then you have to pay a special aggressive dog license.
Source: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/dog-book/chapter11-5.html;jsessionid=28C77700192EFD7C915DDEED407D293E
Did the Injured Person Know the Risk of Injury?
[...]The same goes for warning signs. Someone who ignores a clear, prominently posted "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 severely bitten by a German shepherd that most definitely was on duty. He sued but lost. A court concluded that he "voluntarily left his place of safety" and knowingly took the risk of injury. [...]
--
Source: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/dog-book/chapter11-5.html;jsessionid=28C77700192EFD7C915DDEED407D293E
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 speak with you, 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 one case from Nebraska, a child visiting relatives stuck her hand through a fence to pet the neighbor's dog; she was found to be a trespasser. 39 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. 40
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. 42
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. Many courts have softened the rule to avoid unjust results. Some 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. 43 Some say that the common law rule doesn't apply to trespassers if the dog is a guard dog. 44
Another way courts get around an unfair result is by allowing the dog owner to charge that the victim, by trespassing, either was partly to blame (see "Was the Injured Person Careless?" below) or knowingly took the risk of injury (see discussion above). If the dog owner can prove either of those circumstances, liability may be reduced or eliminated altogether.
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. 45
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.
----
This kinda reminds me of these incidences:
Yosemite Plans No New Warnings Signs
Hawaii Kipu Falls Deaths - Tourist Attraction on Private Property
@jujee - AND Kyuubi! He may not be "aggressive" but he is a FANTASTIC Alert Dog! He does kinda "guard" the property by investigating and "big dog" barking at unfamilar noises or strangers (my brother already has confused his bark with Shoushuus! I'm like, "No, that's Kyuubi - the PUPPY!"). He is happy and relaxed during the daylight hours but at night he is "on guard/on alert" and highly persistent if something isn't quite right or a stranger walks on to or near our property. Once he deems "a stranger" not a threat then he relaxes and does his own thing (whatever that is).
@Brad the Nolo article is the same as the other article. Any idea what the source is for this article?
Also I found this in the same nolo article:
"The "business pursuits" exclusion. All insurance policies contain exclusions, clauses that say specific kinds of incidents aren't covered. Because homeowner's insurance is supposed to insure homes, not businesses, many homeowner's policies have a "business pursuits" exclusion. Such policies don't cover claims that arise from a homeowner's business activities. The exclusion may apply when an accident happens in the home even if the business conducted there is only a part-time activity.
EXAMPLE: An Oklahoma man found his homeowner's insurance didn't cover him when a potential buyer was bitten while looking at a litter of St. Bernard puppies, which he kept at his home. The business pursuits exclusion applied, a court ruled, even though the man's primary occupation was as a salesman. The business activities in this case went beyond the infrequent sale of a litter of pups: the man had renovated his barn to use it as a kennel, and advertised dogs for sale in the newspaper and on a large sign. 67"
My liability has always told me that as long as it's a hobby. I may call them today and ask again for the exact clause.
Does anyone else worry about how their signs make them look to other people? Or am I just neurotic? LOL.
Jen
Posted at the front of our property (by the front door) and at the back of our fence
Posted on all the gates
Posted on the barn (where the guardians are housed when not working)
----
Most of the stories people here about outrageous torts suits are actually false. Also, at least one of the stories that partially true is actually a actually settlement that occurred back when California changed the legal standard for property liability to trespassers from willful or wanton action to "reasonable care." People weren't certain what reasonable care meant in the context of a trespasser, so they settled. However, based on case law it appears that it's actually a sliding scale---reasonableness for a guest is different from reasonableness for a trespasser. Also, another thing to remember is that anything that's not settled tends to go to a jury of people who think of trespassers just the way that you and I do. Thus they are unlikely to return a verdict in favor of a burglar. Furthermore appellate courts are very reluctant to overturn jury verdicts, so you're unlikely to see courts stepping in unless there is something other than the jury verdict being contested.
Just thought I'd point this stuff out because I'm seeing a lot of false information on this thread. As a note, however, I would like to point out that I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice (I'm just a law student and all of this comes from my torts professor
----
My husband started to open the door, and the guy already had the screen door open, and was reaching, stupidly, for the regular door. Oskar, who is pretty mellow generally, just about broke through to get at the guy (I mean, Oskar only weighs 10 pounds less than my husband!), and my husband had to slam the door and yell at the guy to step away from the door. (The guy was process server, by the way, serving me a subpoena in a court case--and this could have gone through the mail, so I have to admit a part of me hoped this scared the hell out of the guy, which apparently it did, once he was faced with a very upset Akita) Oskar was apparently pretty worked up.
Of course, this was terribly stupid. The sign says beware of dog, and the guy did not honk his car horn at the gate or do anything to get attention before he came through the gate. But if the dogs had been out, but not immediately visible and he had come in, I think Oskar likely would have bit him.
So I'm thinking of a new sign. Apparently "beware of dog" is not enough to warn people not to come into the yard. Maybe I should get one of the "guard dog on duty" signs?
Unfortunately, most legal servers are idiots and think that they are above paying attention to signs.
Because of Nola's health issues, I will probably have to put up a sign that specifically states 'Dog Will Bite'... Luckily she is still afraid of unfamiliar people, so I doubt she would ever get close enough to a stranger to snap, but you never know with all of her personality changes. That, and she is NEVER outside unattended now, but she can still be really quick, even as sick as she is. :-/
But from a 'guard dog' sign point... That is probably a good idea since Oskar really seems to get worked up with strangers knocking on the door.
And I really did think of what happened with you when this happened....I mean what the hell? Except this guy should have had some professional caution, as he was an adult. He was really shook up when he saw how big Oskar was though!
But yes, another sign.
And virtual (ie. non scary stranger) hugs to Nola.
We have a huge "Guard Dogs on Duty" sign right by the front door. It's silly tho, because if you are that close to our front door and haven't figured out we have guard dogs then you must be too stupid to read a sign anyway.