The Utah Supreme Court addressed a question of first impression regarding landlord liability for tenant-owned dogs in *Tesch v. Bonneville Property Investment, LLC* (Utah 2025), a case that could establish important precedent for property owner responsibilities in animal attack cases.
The case arose when a young boy was injured while retrieving a baseball that had rolled onto rental property owned by Bonneville Property Investment, LLC. The tenant had kept two dogs on the property—a pit bull and a German shepherd—that neighbors described as "terrifying," "very aggressive," and "not properly restrained." When the child entered the fenced yard to retrieve his ball, the pit bull emerged from the house and bit the boy's hand.
Todd Tesch, acting as custodial guardian for the injured minor, filed suit against Bonneville, arguing the landlord was negligent in failing to protect his son from the aggressive dog. The lawsuit presented a novel question in Utah law: under what circumstances, if any, can a landlord be held liable for injuries caused by a tenant's pet?
The rental property included a fenced yard and a dog run, suggesting the landlord was aware the premises would house animals. However, the specific facts regarding Bonneville's knowledge of the dogs' aggressive behavior and any steps taken to address safety concerns were central to the legal dispute.
Generally, landlords are not liable for their tenants' tortious conduct under established legal principles. This immunity stems from the basic premise that tenants, not landlords, control the day-to-day activities on rental property. However, courts have recognized limited exceptions to this rule in cases involving dangerous conditions or activities that landlords knew or should have known posed risks to third parties.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Bonneville, concluding as a matter of law that the landlord owed no duty to the injured child to prevent the dog attack. The trial court's ruling suggested that traditional landlord-tenant law principles shielded property owners from liability for their tenants' animals, regardless of the circumstances.
Tesch appealed the summary judgment ruling to the Utah Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on April 9, 2025. The case presented the high court with an opportunity to clarify Utah law regarding the extent of landlord duties in premises liability cases involving tenant-owned animals.
The legal framework surrounding landlord liability for tenant animals varies significantly across jurisdictions. Some states have adopted broad immunity for landlords unless they directly participated in keeping dangerous animals. Others have recognized liability where landlords had actual knowledge of an animal's dangerous propensities and failed to take reasonable steps to protect third parties.
Key factors that courts typically consider in such cases include whether the landlord had knowledge of the animal's aggressive behavior, whether the lease agreement addressed pet ownership and restraint requirements, and whether the landlord exercised sufficient control over the premises to prevent foreseeable harm.
The Utah Supreme Court's opinion, authored by Justice Petersen and joined by Chief Justice Durrant, Associate Chief Justice Pearce, Justice Hagen, and Justice Pohlman, represents the unanimous view of the court on this important premises liability question.
The case has implications beyond dog bite incidents, as it addresses broader questions about when property owners can be held responsible for dangerous conditions created by their tenants. The ruling could influence how landlords structure lease agreements, conduct property inspections, and respond to complaints about tenant activities that might pose risks to neighbors or visitors.
For personal injury attorneys, the decision provides guidance on when landlord liability claims may be viable in cases involving tenant-owned animals. The ruling may also influence how insurance companies assess coverage and liability risks for rental property owners.
The complete opinion details the court's analysis of duty, breach, causation, and damages in the context of landlord-tenant relationships and animal attacks. The court's reasoning will likely serve as precedent for similar cases throughout Utah and may influence decisions in other jurisdictions grappling with comparable legal questions.
Property management companies and landlords should review their policies and procedures regarding tenant pets in light of this ruling. The decision may prompt changes in lease language, inspection protocols, and response procedures when concerns arise about aggressive animals on rental properties.
The case was heard on direct appeal from the Second District Court in Weber County, where Judge Jason C. Nelson presided over the original proceedings. Robert W. Gibbons and Lindy W. Hamilton of Ogden represented the appellant, while Joseph E. Minnock of Salt Lake City represented Bonneville Property Investment.