OK dont take this to mean they can bit adults, But what most courts are interested in is "reasonable and prudant". If a searonable and prudant person would know better than to enter your yard,and you can prove the dog is not a biter you would probably be OK.But remember , what is reasonable for a adult is not for a smal child, or around here, Many dot read englsh.
As for the sign,,, I have three that say "loose dogs on property" Their not loose but who cares. If tahen to court I,ll say its a warning so some one wont leave the gate open and let them out.

Ron

California law:

3342. (a) The owner of any dog is liable for the damages suffered by any person who is bitten by the dog while in a public place or lawfully in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness. A person is lawfully upon the private property of such owner within the meaning of this section when he is on such property in the performance of any duty imposed upon him by the laws of this state or by the laws or postal regulations of the United States, or when he is on such property upon the invitation, express or implied, of the owner.

To me this would imply that if someone is on your property in defiance of a no trespassing sign, or despite a "beware of dog" sign (the latter eliminating any implied sanction for entry), and they're not a meter reader or a postman, then you're clear. FWIW, meter readers and postman will generally not enter a property that's posted with a "keep out, beware of dog" sign.

But all things considered, it's better, at least when you're not home, to keep the dog in a kennel, for his own safety if nothing else.

That would be my understanding of it too Dave. This is the case in most but not all states, and it does vary from state to state.

I would guess that if someone is on your property to commit a crime and they get bit, then you should be in the clear. But this does not stop people from making a lawsuit against you.

Dave, you are addressing statutory liability. i.e. if your dog bites someone not lawfully on your property you may not have violated the statute. However, you may still be liable under common law.

Michael,

Keep in mind the amount of force allowed. You can't blow someone away or send your dog after them for some minor incident such as trespassing by cutting through your yard but doing nothing else (unless of course you live in TX <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> of course I'm kidding you cowboys out there). One traditional example of this is the use of spring guns. You cannot (in most jurisdictions of which I am aware) protect your property with a spring gun. Just recently a man (actually his estate b/c he is now dead) won $75k when he sued for wrongful death in a case where he was electrocuted while breaking into a bar. The bar owner/operator installed the homemade burglar system to protect his property and it worked like a charm. Only now, he has a dead guy in the bar, probably a smell that took weeks to air out, and a $75k judgment against him. Of course, the plaintiff won't be burglarizing any more properties again. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I worked for a guy once who owns an auction, and keeps lots of stuff at his warehouse in the industrial zone. When I was there, I noticed this older female Lab mix following us around. I asked about her, and the guy told me that he used to have a trained guard dog (Dobe, I believe) that he kept there, but one night a thief trespassed on the property and was bitten while in the commission of a crime. The owner of the auction was still found liable for the dog bite, which I found surprising, despite the fact that the victim was trespassing and stealing. That's why he got the Lab mix, to act as a deterrent to any would-be thieves, but not to bite. I thought that was interesting.

Very intresting stuff here. I would think that if a dog bites a man that was breaking into a commercial property that was clearley marked with Guard Dog signs, while he could sue and maybe even win in some places, he would be traveling down a long hard road with a good lawyer on the people's side that he is sueing. If in the area there was no criminal wrong doing on the dog owner's part, then civil liability will not be that easy.

No matter what you use, if force is part of your program of security then there are risks involved. It depends on the crime and the injuries one sustains from whatever force you choose to use. I know people that rent guard dogs, and they have a 1 million dollar insurance policy..

It does all depend on where you live. Each state has it's own laws about negligence, vicious dogs, etc. Dave posted the CA statute, but also be aware that different counties and municipalities have their *own* ordinances which may be even more restrictive. It doesn't make a lot of constitutional sense but dog bite cases rarely make it to the high courts.

Dunno if it's ever been changed but San Diego had a terribly written ordinance about 10 yrs ago, last time I looked at it.

You also need to gain an understanding of how the courts have *interpreted* the statutes. Those of you in LE know too well how a perfectly reasonable law in the hands of a goofy judge can go sideways on ya . . .

It makes no never mind how the folks here on the board *feel* about the various dog laws. If you want to protect yourself, pay to consult w/a competent attorney in your area.

It's also apples and oranges when you try to compare your liability on your business property vs your home. Most jurisdictions recognize a right to defend yourself in your home (tho there are restrictions on that as well, your lawyer can explain it).

A business, however *could* be looked at as closer to *public* or *quasi public* property, different than your private residence. Most businesses actually invite the public or at least anticipate outside delivery people, vendors, etc. You could well be legally obliged to provide greater protection to a tresspasser at your place of business than in your home.

It will all turn on the actual wording of the statutes in your area as well as how the courts have interpreted them.

Joy, I agree that if your are seriously concerned that you should consult with an atty in your jurisdiction. Sweeping statements may provide a general set of issues/rules with regard to a subject, but should not be used to guide conduct.

For example, your statement about businesses is very general. There exist distinctions in "public" and private areas of a business - try walking behind the counter of your local bank and you'll find that it's not public <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> . Similarly, while people may be invited from the lobby of my office to the other areas, they most certainly are private. In fact, if someone tries to come into my office on the weekend when I am here they will probably be bitten by my GSD - hey, everyone's got to do some work. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />