I own a dog who can be a little nuts at times. My home has a small yard with a fence. I usually leave my dog play in the yard off leash. I read an earlier post about dog bite cases. If I put up a sign that says “Beware of Dog,” am I admitting that my dog is vicious? Should I put up a warning sign or leave it down?

In a prior post, we outlined the law in this area. For domestic animals, the owner of the animal is responsible for attacks and bites if the owner knew of their pet’s vicious propensities. Therefore, this question raises the issue: does a “Beware of Dog” sign prove that the owner of the dog was aware of its vicious propensities?

Although you are asking an excellent question about the sign, the sign itself does not mean you have knowledge of vicious propensities. Brooks v Adell, 211 A.D.3d 792 (2d Dept. 2022); Miller v Isacoff, 39 A.D.3d 718 (2007). So the sign can be a factor determining whether a dog had a vicious propensity. But the sign itself is not dispositive.

Common Law

Determining if a dog has a vicious propensity involves the common law. There is no statutory definition of a vicious propensity. To evaluate the case, one has to survey appellate cases to see what type of behaviors a court will allow a jury to consider in deciding if the dog has a vicious propensity. There are some behaviors that the court would rule, as a matter of law, that a dog has not demonstrated vicious propensities. The following is a survey of some appellate cases where the court has ruled could be behavior showing a vicious propensity.

Appellate Cases

Modafferi v DiMatteo, 177 AD3d 1413 (4th Dept 2019) (dog had attacked smaller dogs, the court held a jury could find vicious propensities). Olsen v Campbell, 150 AD3d 1460 (2d Dept 2017) (guard dog on chain that previously broke chain, grabbed hold of person’s pant leg, and children warned to avoid dog, the court held that a jury could find vicious propensities). Rosenbaum v Rauer, 80 AD3d 686 (2d Dept 2011) (a dog had a tendency to thrust its head under a fence, growl, show teeth, and snap, the court held that a jury could find vicious propensities). Anderson v Carduner, 279 AD2d 369 (1st Dept 2001) (a dog who tendency to greet people could be found as a vicious). Moriano by Moriano v Schmidt, 133 AD2d 72 (2d Dept 1987) (a dog who growled and pulled at its chain could be found as having a vicious propensity).

There are of course many more cases to review. But the “Beware of Dog” is not enough to prove a vicious propensity.

By James Santner, Esq.

If you have questions about a similar situation, feel free to contact us. Consultations are free and there is no fee unless we win.