Moomin1
Well-Known Member
So you were right behind him, with lead in your hand, yet a little child managed to run up, attack your dog despite being nowhere near it....
Wow, you have very slow reactions
Warning signs. Legal or illegal?
- Thread starter Luci07
- Start date
So you were right behind him, with lead in your hand, yet a little child managed to run up, attack your dog despite being nowhere near it....
Wow, you have very slow reactions
DressageCob
Well-Known Member
Back on the subject of the thread, again there's a bit of misinformation on here!
Let's use the example of a dog. If you have a dog on the premises, it's a fact that that dog may bite an intruder. That's nothing to do with the nature of the particular dog, it being a guard dog or otherwise, it's just a typical response by a dog to those circumstances. So, if you look at the Animals Act s2 the stages are:
- the damage caused is a type likely to be caused by the animal or if damage is caused it's likely to be severe (simple- a dog bite is a particular type of damage, or there's damage caused by being knocked over by dog etc)
- the likelihood of damage or its being severe is due to characteristics of the animal not normally found in animals of that species (for instance, a vicious attack pig) or aren't found except in particular circumstances (so dog attacking when there's an intruder, a horse kicking out when threatened)
- those characteristics are known to the keeper (this doesn't have to be specific knowledge of that particular animal's character if it's a reaction to particular circumstances- the knowledge that that type of animal can react that way is enough)
As you can see, it's very easy to be liable under this if your animal reacts to an intruder or a threat in a typical way. If you get through these stages you are automatically liable.
The next step is the defences. These are in s5.
- damage is the fault of person suffering it (for instance, a rider whipping a horse repeatedly to get a reaction)
- the person voluntarily accepted the risk of the damage (this is where the signs come in - if you have signs up saying "beware of the dog" or "horses may bite" or "horses may kick" - so not saying that they will, just that horses generally may do that, and someone approaches the animal in any event, then they have been informed but have accepted the risk)
- damage caused to an intruder and the animal isn't kept for the purposes of guarding the premises or keeping a guard animal isn't unreasonable
There are a few more that aren't relevant.
So if the person isn't an intruder and you haven't warned about the risks posed by your animals you could potentially be liable (depending on a variety of other variables), and a sign could help to show that the person has accepted the risk.
In terms of other approaches, you can look at negligence or the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 (for lawful visitors). Here you have to take reasonable steps to keep visitors reasonably safe. In a number of decided cases concerning injuries caused by animals, signs have been held to have been steps taken to keep visitors safe, and a lack of signs has been used to show that the occupier could have taken more steps. This is why it is worth having signs, again generic ones, saying horses are unpredictable animals and may kick/bite, beware of the goose, dogs roaming free etc.
For intruders you look at the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984. If you know or have reasonable grounds to believe a danger exists and know or believe that the other person may be in the vicinity of that danger or may come into the vicinity (so if you believe there's a risk of intruders, burglars, trespassers etc) and it's a risk you might reasonably be expected to offer some protection (which loose animals will be) then you have to take reasonable care to prevent that person from suffering injury.
So again, you may have a duty to warn trespassers of the risks on your land. In this case, animals causing injury.
The short version of the above is, if you can show you have warned about (a) the presence of animals on the property and (b) the risks presented by those animals you are in a much better place for arguing that the person either (a) accepted the risk of injury and/or (b) you have taken the reasonable steps to warn and minimise the risk.
Hope that all makes sense
Let's use the example of a dog. If you have a dog on the premises, it's a fact that that dog may bite an intruder. That's nothing to do with the nature of the particular dog, it being a guard dog or otherwise, it's just a typical response by a dog to those circumstances. So, if you look at the Animals Act s2 the stages are:
- the damage caused is a type likely to be caused by the animal or if damage is caused it's likely to be severe (simple- a dog bite is a particular type of damage, or there's damage caused by being knocked over by dog etc)
- the likelihood of damage or its being severe is due to characteristics of the animal not normally found in animals of that species (for instance, a vicious attack pig) or aren't found except in particular circumstances (so dog attacking when there's an intruder, a horse kicking out when threatened)
- those characteristics are known to the keeper (this doesn't have to be specific knowledge of that particular animal's character if it's a reaction to particular circumstances- the knowledge that that type of animal can react that way is enough)
As you can see, it's very easy to be liable under this if your animal reacts to an intruder or a threat in a typical way. If you get through these stages you are automatically liable.
The next step is the defences. These are in s5.
- damage is the fault of person suffering it (for instance, a rider whipping a horse repeatedly to get a reaction)
- the person voluntarily accepted the risk of the damage (this is where the signs come in - if you have signs up saying "beware of the dog" or "horses may bite" or "horses may kick" - so not saying that they will, just that horses generally may do that, and someone approaches the animal in any event, then they have been informed but have accepted the risk)
- damage caused to an intruder and the animal isn't kept for the purposes of guarding the premises or keeping a guard animal isn't unreasonable
There are a few more that aren't relevant.
So if the person isn't an intruder and you haven't warned about the risks posed by your animals you could potentially be liable (depending on a variety of other variables), and a sign could help to show that the person has accepted the risk.
In terms of other approaches, you can look at negligence or the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 (for lawful visitors). Here you have to take reasonable steps to keep visitors reasonably safe. In a number of decided cases concerning injuries caused by animals, signs have been held to have been steps taken to keep visitors safe, and a lack of signs has been used to show that the occupier could have taken more steps. This is why it is worth having signs, again generic ones, saying horses are unpredictable animals and may kick/bite, beware of the goose, dogs roaming free etc.
For intruders you look at the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984. If you know or have reasonable grounds to believe a danger exists and know or believe that the other person may be in the vicinity of that danger or may come into the vicinity (so if you believe there's a risk of intruders, burglars, trespassers etc) and it's a risk you might reasonably be expected to offer some protection (which loose animals will be) then you have to take reasonable care to prevent that person from suffering injury.
So again, you may have a duty to warn trespassers of the risks on your land. In this case, animals causing injury.
The short version of the above is, if you can show you have warned about (a) the presence of animals on the property and (b) the risks presented by those animals you are in a much better place for arguing that the person either (a) accepted the risk of injury and/or (b) you have taken the reasonable steps to warn and minimise the risk.
Hope that all makes sense
mhorses
Well-Known Member
A neighbour of mine got a full tank of oil stolen on the day it was filled. They've got cctv at gates of their home and got the number of the second oil lorry which emptied their tank ten minutes later. They contacted the police to report the crime so the police called over to the house, the neighbour was putting the cctv footage on their TV in lounge to show the police when the policeman asked whether they had cctv warning signs. They said no. The police men walked out of the room and refused to watch it as it was against European human rights to show it to them if the burglars hadn't been warned. Even though they had a number plate, a receipt from the first lorry, a vehicle description and a face. That story really made my blood boil. Another good reason to leave Europe I thought.
MagicMelon
Well-Known Member
I would expect the law would actually have some sense with this kind of rubbish if actually taken to court...
mhorses - surely that's not right. What about all the CCTV cameras in shopping areas, streets etc. I never see any signs...?
mhorses - surely that's not right. What about all the CCTV cameras in shopping areas, streets etc. I never see any signs...?
Dry Rot
Well-Known Member
An interesting thread!
I have two German shepherds. one currently in training for protection work. I also have two signs, one says "Guard Dogs" and the other (picked up at the recycling centre where someone had thrown it out!) "Warning: These premises are patrolled by guard dogs". I have been told that I shouldn't have these signs up because the law that applies to guard dogs is more onerous than to pets. But I am a pensioner farmer living in an isolated location so it is a question of balancing the risks. I think I'd prefer a free holiday at Her Majesty's expense than being beaten up by one of the mobile fraternity! Oh, and the dogs are either with me or kennelled and under pretty strict control when on the loose, so they not a big risk in any case. but the one in training really would appreciate a burglar if there is one reading this!
Interesting to read that a "Beware of the dog" sign is a warning and anyone who ignores that is consenting to the risks involved. I was always taught that it was an admission that your dog was dangerous whereas without the warning sign it was allowed one bite after which the fact proved the case.
I have two German shepherds. one currently in training for protection work. I also have two signs, one says "Guard Dogs" and the other (picked up at the recycling centre where someone had thrown it out!) "Warning: These premises are patrolled by guard dogs". I have been told that I shouldn't have these signs up because the law that applies to guard dogs is more onerous than to pets. But I am a pensioner farmer living in an isolated location so it is a question of balancing the risks. I think I'd prefer a free holiday at Her Majesty's expense than being beaten up by one of the mobile fraternity! Oh, and the dogs are either with me or kennelled and under pretty strict control when on the loose, so they not a big risk in any case. but the one in training really would appreciate a burglar if there is one reading this!
Interesting to read that a "Beware of the dog" sign is a warning and anyone who ignores that is consenting to the risks involved. I was always taught that it was an admission that your dog was dangerous whereas without the warning sign it was allowed one bite after which the fact proved the case.
Alec Swan
Well-Known Member
Indeed, and it would probably prove to be the case that in the event of a Court appearance, it would be down to the opinion at the time, of those who would judge us! Otherwise, I'm with you, and were I to these days keep such a dog, then I'd do so and accept the risk of internment, rather than have a Court look at my damaged appearance and say "Well you had a dog, why didn't you rely upon his abilities"?!
Alec.
popsdosh
Well-Known Member
Beware is fine as you are just drawing peoples attention to the presence. However if you use the word Danger thats a no no. IE we had signs saying danger bull in field it implies the Bull is dangerous so all we put up now is Beware bull in field or just Bull in field it is slightly different in that we have to under law warn people to the presence of said bull in field.
Luci07
Well-Known Member
Interesting responses and thank you all posting responses. It is not possible to get within 10 feet of my house before my dogs start letting me know someone is coming up the path. I actually don't bother with a doorbell as the dogs will always let me know if I have a visitor.
This seems to me to be coming down to the same territory as if your hi biz says "beware young horse".
However, end of the day, the fact that you have to WARN a trespasser that they "could" be at risk when on your property is ridiculous. We could delve further and ask what the implications would be if, as an example, you keep a cricket bat under your bed or a licensed gun. Does this show intent to harm a would be attacker or thief? Or is it taken as reasonable thst a house holder can defend themselves (which I think the law now allows).. In which case, why do I need to warn about my animals but not a loaded gun?
This seems to me to be coming down to the same territory as if your hi biz says "beware young horse".
However, end of the day, the fact that you have to WARN a trespasser that they "could" be at risk when on your property is ridiculous. We could delve further and ask what the implications would be if, as an example, you keep a cricket bat under your bed or a licensed gun. Does this show intent to harm a would be attacker or thief? Or is it taken as reasonable thst a house holder can defend themselves (which I think the law now allows).. In which case, why do I need to warn about my animals but not a loaded gun?
kez81
Well-Known Member
I was advised by my lawyer that the only sign you really need is a disclaimer stating all persons entering the property do so at their own risk and the owner accepts no liability for any loss or injury to any persons or property whilst visiting. I do also have a caution loose dogs sign mostly so the postman doesn't run over the dogs. My lawyer says that this places responsibility on the visitor ( welcome or otherwise!) In the event of an accident or injury as by entering the property they are agreeing to the terms of the sign. That's why lots of business such as riding schools have these signs up.
Cinnamontoast
Fais pas chier!
I'm very surprised to see this post. All the parks in my area allow loose dogs and inevitably, there are children. My dogs recall extremely well 99% of the time, but they're not robots. They ignore other people, so why should I not let them off to run? The one time there has been a problem was when they went off after a deer in the woods and were missing for hours. I can't take one of them to the woods anymore, so I'm obliged to walk them in parks and AFAIK, there is no local ban on loose dogs in any of the parks. The youngsters are trained for the whole walk, retrieve, search etc, the older one meanders round and might say hello to another dog occasionally. He's the one I use to introduce a very small child if they want to say hi.
Dry Rot
Well-Known Member
That is all very well, but I think the law would take a very unsporting point of view if I started setting man traps on my farm, with or without a warning notice! Don't forget that in Scotland there is now a right to roam (responsibly) so we do indeed owe a duty of care to the occasional wanderer and especially children who might not be able to read a warning sign anyway.