Tesch v. Bonneville: Utah Supreme Court Rejects Landlord Duty for Tenant’s Dog

Todd Tesch, acting as custodial guardian for his minor son, brought a negligence action against Bonneville Property Investment, LLC. Bonneville owned a single-family rental property in South Ogden, Utah. The property included a house, a fenced yard, and a dog run. The tenant lived at the property for several years under a lease that renewed on a month-to-month basis after the initial term. The lease restricted pets, permitting only an outside cat and chickens, and granted Bonneville rights of inspection and repair.

At some point during the tenancy, the tenant began keeping two dogs at the property, a pit bull and a German shepherd. Neighbors later described the dogs as aggressive and territorial. Some neighbors stated that the dogs were frequently outside, sometimes unleashed, and that prior incidents had occurred involving the dogs charging or biting individuals in the neighborhood.

One day, Tesch’s son was playing baseball nearby when his ball rolled into the tenant’s yard. When the child entered the yard to retrieve the ball, the pit bull exited the house and bit his hand. There was a dispute about whether the bite occurred on the property or just outside the property line.

Tesch sued Bonneville, asserting that the landlord was negligent for allowing a dangerous condition to exist on the property and for failing to protect third parties from harm caused by the tenant’s dogs. After discovery, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Bonneville, concluding that the landlord owed no duty to Tesch’s son under the circumstances. Tesch appealed.

Landlord Duties Under Utah Premises Liability Law

The Supreme Court of Utah reviewed the case to determine whether a landlord may owe a duty to protect third parties from injuries caused by a tenant’s dog. The court began by explaining that, as a general rule, landlords are not responsible for the torts of their tenants. Liability may arise only in limited circumstances recognized under Utah premises liability law.

The court reviewed established principles governing landlord liability for dangerous conditions on land. Before a tenant takes possession, a landlord may be liable for dangerous conditions the landlord creates or knows about and fails to remedy. After possession transfers, liability generally rests with the tenant for conditions created or permitted by the tenant. A landlord may still owe a duty for areas over which it retains possession or control, such as common areas.

Tesch advanced several theories attempting to extend these principles to the presence of a tenant’s dogs. The court assumed, without deciding, that a dangerous dog could be treated as a dangerous condition on land for purposes of analysis.

Alleged Dangerous Conditions Created Before Possession

Tesch argued that Bonneville created or knew of a dangerous condition before the tenant took possession because the property included a fenced yard and dog run, and because the lease allowed pets under limited circumstances. The court rejected this argument. It explained that allowing dogs in general, or providing features attractive to dog owners, does not create a dangerous condition. Dogs are not inherently dangerous, and there was no evidence that Bonneville knew the tenant would keep dangerous dogs when possession transferred.

The court also rejected reliance on Bonneville’s obligation to maintain liability insurance, explaining that this requirement did not demonstrate knowledge of a dangerous condition.

Control Over the Property After Possession

Tesch next argued that Bonneville retained sufficient control over the property to impose a duty. He relied on doctrines addressing landlord liability for dangerous conditions in areas under the landlord’s control. The court examined whether the location of the incident qualified as a common area. It concluded that the single-family rental property did not contain common areas as that term is traditionally understood, and there was no evidence that Bonneville controlled the area where the injury occurred.

Tesch also argued that the lease provisions granting Bonneville inspection and repair rights made it a possessor of the property. The court rejected this theory, explaining that such provisions are typical of landlord-tenant relationships and do not confer the level of control required to treat a landlord as a possessor. Bonneville was not in physical possession of the property, and the tenant occupied and controlled the premises on a daily basis.

Dangerous Activity Theory

Finally, Tesch urged the court to adopt a legal theory treating the tenant’s dogs as a dangerous activity conducted on the land. He relied on a Restatement provision that allows liability when a landlord consents to or knows of a dangerous activity and knows it involves unreasonable risk. The court declined to adopt this theory in the absence of developed legal analysis applying the standard to the facts of the case. The record did not establish that Bonneville had actual knowledge of the dogs’ dangerous propensities.

The Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court of Utah concluded that Tesch failed to establish a legal duty owed by Bonneville under any proposed theory. Because landlords are not generally liable for injuries caused by a tenant’s dog, and because none of the recognized exceptions applied, the district court correctly granted summary judgment. The court affirmed the dismissal of the negligence claim.

Assistance With Premises Liability Matters

If you’ve experienced injuries related to unsafe property conditions, Whitcomb Selinsky PC handles premises liability matters. Reach out to our team through our contact page to learn how our team can assist with your claim.