Beware of the dog sign laws

Change in BEWARE of the dog sign.  Ive looked into this and the law is completely wrong.

The law takes a peculiar stance when it comes to the use of ‘beware of the dog’ signs.

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. 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.

So for those considering a sign, according to the law if you have a harmless pet dog then by all means display a ‘beware of the dog’ sign as a deterrent, but if you have a dog that would be liable to attack an intruder then don’t, as you might get into trouble.

So basically its saying that if you have a small, medium, large, non vicious, vicious dog and DO NOT have a sign up and an intruder breaks in and gets biten then NOTHING will be done and the owner will NOT be prosecuted.

However, if you put up a BEWARE sign and an intruder gets attacked by the dog defending its property/master your liable for any damage caused to the intruder because by putting up a BEWARE sign its classed as a threat and foreknowledge of your dog/s aggressive or possible aggressive nature.

I have currrent signs up saying BEWARE and own 2 rottweilers who are both very placid and are now known to be a placid breed and NOT Dangerous and one is even a qualified PAT dog enabling him to go into hospitals, schools, homes etc but should an intruder break in and for some reason he decideds to protect that day we will be prosecuted purely because our sign is up and states BEWARE.

We also travelled to several pet shops today asking if they knew of the BEWARE sign law as they all sold BEWARE of the dog signs and NOT one was aware.  You only seem to learn this ridiculous law when its too late and surely BEWARE is a WARNING not a THREAT.

Why is this idea important?

Change in BEWARE of the dog sign.  Ive looked into this and the law is completely wrong.

The law takes a peculiar stance when it comes to the use of ‘beware of the dog’ signs.

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. 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.

So for those considering a sign, according to the law if you have a harmless pet dog then by all means display a ‘beware of the dog’ sign as a deterrent, but if you have a dog that would be liable to attack an intruder then don’t, as you might get into trouble.

So basically its saying that if you have a small, medium, large, non vicious, vicious dog and DO NOT have a sign up and an intruder breaks in and gets biten then NOTHING will be done and the owner will NOT be prosecuted.

However, if you put up a BEWARE sign and an intruder gets attacked by the dog defending its property/master your liable for any damage caused to the intruder because by putting up a BEWARE sign its classed as a threat and foreknowledge of your dog/s aggressive or possible aggressive nature.

I have currrent signs up saying BEWARE and own 2 rottweilers who are both very placid and are now known to be a placid breed and NOT Dangerous and one is even a qualified PAT dog enabling him to go into hospitals, schools, homes etc but should an intruder break in and for some reason he decideds to protect that day we will be prosecuted purely because our sign is up and states BEWARE.

We also travelled to several pet shops today asking if they knew of the BEWARE sign law as they all sold BEWARE of the dog signs and NOT one was aware.  You only seem to learn this ridiculous law when its too late and surely BEWARE is a WARNING not a THREAT.