Short answer: In Tesch v. Bonneville Property Investment, the Utah Supreme Court held that a landlord did not owe a legal duty to a boy bitten by a tenant’s pit bull at a single-family rental. The court repeated the long-standing rule that a landlord “is not responsible for the tenant’s torts,” found no evidence the landlord controlled the spot where the bite happened, and declined to adopt a Restatement rule that some other states use against landlords. None of that protects the dog’s owner. Utah holds the person who owns or keeps a dog liable for the injuries it causes.
Landlords come up in a lot of dog-bite claims, usually because the person who owned the dog has thin coverage and the property owner has a policy. Until this opinion, Utah had no appellate answer to whether a landlord can be responsible for a tenant’s dog. The court called it “an issue of first impression in Utah” (¶3). Here is what happened, what the justices decided, and what it leaves open.
The Case in Plain Terms
The decision is Tesch v. Bonneville Property Investment, LLC, 2025 UT 58, filed November 28, 2025. Justice Petersen wrote for all five justices.
According to the opinion, Bonneville owned a rental house in South Ogden with “a fully fenced yard, a dog run, and a chicken coop” (¶5). One tenant lived there for about four years, first on a one-year lease and then month to month (¶6). The lease barred pets “in the interior of the premises” without written consent. In the space for exceptions, the landlord had written “Outside cat & chickens.” The lease did not mention dogs (¶¶8–9).
At some point the tenant began keeping a German shepherd and a pit bull. Neighbors testified the dogs were “terrifying,” “vicious,” “very aggressive,” and “not properly restrained” (¶10). More than a year before the bite at issue, the dogs had charged a child, and on another occasion police were called after the German shepherd bit a neighbor in his driveway (¶12). The landlord visited at least once a month but testified he did not know any dogs lived there. A woman who stayed with the tenant for a time said she left the landlord several messages that dogs were living at the house, but not that she described them as vicious (¶¶13–14).
Then a boy playing baseball nearby went to get his ball from the front yard. The pit bull “escaped from the house, attacked the boy, and bit his hand.” The parties disagreed about whether the bite happened on the property or just outside it as he ran (¶15). His father sued the landlord for negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for the landlord, and the Supreme Court affirmed (¶¶16, 48).
One detail matters for everything that follows: the tenant’s own liability was not part of the appeal. In a footnote, the court noted that “[i]n Utah, dog owners are strictly liable for injuries caused by their own dogs,” and that the only question was whether the landlord “may also be liable” (¶20 n.4).
The Starting Point: Landlords Don’t Answer for Tenants’ Wrongs
The court began with a rule from 1978: “[A] landlord is not deemed to be the principal of his tenant merely because of the landlord-tenant relationship,” so a landlord “is not responsible for the tenant’s torts” (¶21, quoting Stephenson v. Warner, 581 P.2d 567, 568 (Utah 1978)). Once a tenant moves in, “it is the tenant who is liable for any dangerous condition on the premises which he creates or permits to come into existence after he has taken possession” (¶25, quoting Stephenson).
The plaintiff offered three ways around that rule. For purposes of the appeal, the court assumed “without deciding that a dangerous dog can be treated like a dangerous condition on land” (¶23 n.5). Each theory still failed.
Theory One: The Landlord Created the Danger
The first argument was that the landlord set the stage before the tenant ever arrived: the lease allowed outdoor animals, the fenced yard and dog run made the house attractive to dog owners, and the landlord carried the liability insurance (¶26).
The court disagreed. Allowing dogs, or even inviting dog owners with a dog run, “does not automatically create a dangerous condition on the property, because dogs are not necessarily dangerous” (¶28). It agreed with the Vermont Supreme Court that “dog ownership is a common activity that is usually safe and generally beneficial” (¶29, quoting Gross v. Turner, 195 A.3d 654, 657 (Vt. 2018)). And it noted that other states imposing liability under this theory “have almost uniformly required the plaintiff to show that the landlord knew the tenant’s dog, in particular, had vicious tendencies” (¶29). As for the insurance, the plaintiff did not explain how the landlord’s policy showed it created or knew about a danger (¶27).
Theory Two: Possession and Control
The second argument relied on areas a landlord keeps for itself. Quoting the Utah Court of Appeals, the court restated that “[t]he law generally imposes a duty on a landlord to tenants and third parties for portions of property over which it maintains possession or control, such as common areas, that pose a danger” (¶25, quoting Liley v. Cedar Springs Ranch Inc., 2017 UT App 166, ¶ 26).
The court also described how other states handle tenant dogs under that principle. “Those cases generally hold a landlord liable where: (1) the injury occurred in a common area under the landlord’s control; and (2) the landlord had knowledge of the particular dog’s vicious propensities” (¶34).
That path was closed here. There was “no evidence that Bonneville retained control over the area where the dog bite occurred,” and the plaintiff conceded at oral argument that “at this single-dwelling rental property, there were no ‘common areas’ as that term is traditionally understood” (¶35).
The plaintiff then argued the lease gave the landlord enough control to treat it as the “possessor” of the whole property. The court applied two factors from Hill v. Superior Property Management Services: “(a) the right to exclude others from the property altogether and (b) the right to take all necessary precautions and make necessary repairs” (¶38, quoting 2013 UT 60, ¶ 24). A right to approve occupants and indoor pets, plus a right to enter for inspections and repairs, was not enough. The landlord was not in physical possession; the tenant was (¶40). And “if the right to enter the property for repairs were enough, it would be difficult to find a landlord who did not qualify as a possessor” (¶41). For more on how Utah decides who counts as a possessor, see our post on Hill v. Superior Property Management.
Theory Three: Restatement Section 379A
Finally, the plaintiff asked the court to adopt section 379A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. It makes a lessor liable to people outside the land for a tenant’s activities if the lessor consented to the activity when leasing and “knew or had reason to know” it would involve an unreasonable risk (¶42). The court acknowledged that “many jurisdictions” apply that section, or a version of it, in tenant dog-bite cases, and that those courts “have almost uniformly required a showing that the landlord actually knew the tenant’s dog was dangerous” (¶¶44–45).
The court did not adopt it. The plaintiff had simply recommended adoption without applying the rule to the facts, and “without such analysis, we are not persuaded that Tesch would prevail under section 379A or that we should adopt it here” (¶47). That is a decision about this record and this briefing. It is not a holding that section 379A can never apply in Utah.
What the Court Did Not Decide
Several questions remain open after Tesch:
- Whether a dangerous dog legally counts as a “dangerous condition on land.” The court assumed it did, without deciding (¶23 n.5).
- Whether Utah will adopt section 379A when the argument is fully developed (¶47).
- How the control-based duty described in Liley applies when a bite happens in an area a landlord actually controls, such as a shared yard, walkway or stairwell. The court described other states’ two-part rule but had no common area in front of it (¶¶34–35).
What This Means If a Tenant’s Dog Bit You
The owner is still liable, with or without a history. Under Utah Code 18-1-1(1)(a), “an individual who owns or keeps a dog is liable for an injury caused by the dog, regardless of whether: (i) the dog is vicious or mischievous; or (ii) the owner knows the dog is vicious or mischievous.” The narrow exceptions cover certified police dogs used under agency policy and certain injuries on the owner’s fenced private property to other animals or to trespassers (18-1-1(2)–(3)). Damages are figured under Utah’s comparative-fault statute, 78B-5-818, so the bitten person’s own fault, if any, can reduce the recovery.
The keeper counts too. The statute reaches anyone who “keeps” a dog, not just the person on the adoption papers. Someone caring for the dog in the owner’s place can be a keeper.
Insurance usually runs through the owner or keeper. The practical question after Tesch is often whether the dog’s owner or keeper has homeowner’s or renter’s insurance with liability coverage. Ask for that information early, and in writing.
A landlord claim is narrower, not impossible. Where the landlord keeps control of a shared space and knew about this particular dog’s dangerous behavior, the principles the court described still matter. Evidence of that knowledge, such as written complaints to the owner or property manager, can decide whether that claim exists at all.
Get the animal control report. Call your county or city animal services right away, or the police if it is an emergency, and make sure a bite report is taken. Then request a copy. That report usually records the dog, its owner or keeper, the address, the dog’s vaccination and quarantine status and any earlier bites, and it is often the key evidence in the claim. Keep photos of the injuries, your medical records and the names of witnesses with it.
Pin down where it happened. In Tesch the parties could not even agree whether the bite happened inside the property line (¶15). Photos, measurements and witness names taken early answer that question.
For the rest of the claim, including medical bills and what damages cover, see can I get compensation for a dog bite injury in Utah and our guide to who is liable when a tenant’s dog bites. Don’t wait on the deadline: a Utah dog-bite claim generally must be filed within four years of the injury (Utah Code 78B-2-307), within two years if the bite caused a death, and a notice of claim is due within one year if a government entity is involved. Our Utah personal injury statute of limitations page explains each one.
Talk to a Utah Dog Bite Attorney
Figuring out who owned the dog, who was keeping it, who controlled the ground where it happened, and whose insurance applies is the first job in a dog-bite claim. Our legal team can review those questions with you at no cost. You can also read more on our dog bite injury page.
Hurt in Utah? Call (801) 921-5134 or send us your case for a free consultation. No attorney fees unless we win. Hablamos Español.