Originally Posted by darryl gesner
Actually, it's probably the contrary. The customer has acknowledged that he has a "dangerous animal" on his property and failed to take reasonable measures to protect people from it, i.e. keeping it caged. This is similar to cases where people put up "beware of dog signs" and their dog bites someone. The sign can be used as evidence that they were aware they had a dangerous dog.
Yeah, I've noticed that the wording has changed. I just saw a sign that reads "Dog on Premises". Probably just vague enough to avoid such legal stupidity.