Does posting a “beware of the dog sign” shield a dog owner from liability for an attack on the premises?  The short answer is “no.” To the contrary, installing such a sign can help prove the dog owner’s liability for animal-attack-related injuries and damages.   

Proving Liability For a Dog Bite In Pennsylvania

The two most difficult things to prove in claim for injuries from a dog bite are often:  (1) the dog owner had prior knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensities and (2) the person in control of the canine also had control of the premises. The second one comes up in landlord-tenant situations. There, the dog owner often claims: “It’s my dog, but I can’t help that it jumped the landlord’s short fence. I don’t control the fence, read my lease, that’s the landlord’s responsibility.”

Installing a beware of dog sign on the property implies both knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensities and (2) that the person posting the sign has the right to control the property.  If he could alter the property by putting up signs, a plaintiff’s attorney could argue, then he should have also installed a leash or harness system on the property to contain dog mentioned in the sign.  

Recent Superior Court Decision 

This issue came up recently in the non-precedential opinion of BAYBROOK v. Bologna, No. 331 WDA 2022 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sept. 7, 2022). There, the facts were as follows:

On November 3, 2019, Mr. Baybrook drove to the Bolognas’ home to visit with Mr. Bologna. Mr. Baybrook did not visit frequently, and the Bolognas and Ms. Daugherty were not expecting him. Mr. Baybrook had never met Lola and was not aware that the Bolognas had a dog. When he pulled into the driveway, he did not notice two “Beware of Dog” signs, one posted at the beginning of the driveway and one closer to the house.

Mr. Baybrook did, however, notice Lola attached to a long chain that allowed her to roam the front lawn and a portion of the end of the driveway where cars parked. When he parked, he got out of his vehicle and walked around to the rear passenger’s side. Within approximately five seconds, Lola attacked his leg causing significant injuries. Mr. Baybrook was able to kick the dog off his leg and left the residence to get medical attention.

 

Granting Dismissal of the Case

On the above facts, the Defendant dog owner moved for summary judgment, claiming there was no evidence to suggest the Defendant had prior knowledge of the dog being dangerous.  The trial judge agreed and dismissed the case.  On appeal to the superior court of Pennsylvania, the superior court noted the presence of the “beware of dog” signs, as follows: 

“…[W]hen asked if she put up the “Beware of Dog” signs because Lola was a pit bull, Ms. Daugherty said, “That, and any dog. Yes.” Id. at 15. She also testified that when the dog was outside, package delivery drivers would not get out of their vehicles. Id. at 9-10

Our Pittsburgh dog bite lawyers note: the owner’s sign provided “beware of dog,” not “pit bulls are generally dangerous.”  Rather, it read:  “beware of dog,” meaning beware of the owner’s particular dog.  This with other evidence, created a genuine question of fact, meaning, the trial court erred by dismissing the case.  The superior court remanded the case to the lower court, to schedule a trial.  

 

 

Can a Beware of Dog Sign Ever Help the Dog Owner? 

A beware of dog sign can help show that the injured party was aware of the dangers of being bitten (i.e., she was comparatively negligent), or she assumed the risk for her injuries. These are legitimate defenses to a dog bite claim in Pennsylvania. However, in practice, blaming the victim is rarely good strategy.  Our Pittsburgh attorneys try cases for a living; we know that juries reward those who take responsibility for their action, above all.  A jury is rarely impressed when a Defendant blames the victim, unless the victim’s conduct was brazen or she was on the property to provoke the dog. 

Plus, Pennsylvania applies a comparative negligence standard allows for a recovery against the Defendant, even when the Plaintiff is up to fifty (50) percent at fault for causing his injuries.  There, the verdict will be molded down, but the Defendant will remain responsible to pay half of the Plaintiff’s provable damages.  

 

Ignoring a “Beware of Dog” sign: is it Provocation of the Animal?

The dog bite victim’s decision to ignore a “beware of dog” sign does not constitute proof that the dog was provoked into attacking.  That is to say, subjectively ignoring a “beware of dog” sign is not, by itself, proof of provocation. AEGIS SEC. INS. v. Pennsylvania Ins. Dept., 798 A.2d 330 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002). 

 

Conclusion 

While there are certain instance where a “beware of dog” sign will help assign blame to the victim for an attack, such benefits will be minimal, if any. Rather, the installation of such a sign will most likely serve as evidence that the Defendant dog owner knew two things.  One, it shows knowledge of her dog’s dangerous propensities.  Secondly, it tends to show the Defendant’s the power and ability to make changes to the property to make it more safe. 

The best “defense” to a dog bite claim is to carry adequate liability coverage, which is not required in Pennsylvania, but it’s a good idea.  It can compensate victims and to reduce the risk of garnishment of one’s personal assets to satisfy a dog bite related judgment.  Moreover, in PA, insurers cannot discriminate against pit bulls or any other breed.  

Contact our Pittsburgh lawyers any time for a free consultation about any dog bite claim or defense in Pennsylvania.  

 

412.400.5476