Utah has a strong strict liability law for injuries caused by dogs. If your dog injures someone, you can be responsible even if the dog has never bitten anyone before and you had no reason to think the dog was dangerous.
The controlling statute is Utah Code § 18-1-1. It applies to an individual who owns or keeps a dog. However, strict liability does not mean an automatic check for every injury. The injured person still must prove the dog caused the injury and establish the damages. Comparative fault and specific statutory exceptions can reduce or defeat a claim.
Read Utah Code § 18-1-1(1)(a)–(b).
Comparative Fault Can Reduce Your Recovery
Utah’s dog injury statute specifically incorporates comparative fault. That means the conduct of the injured person matters too. If someone provokes a dog or contributes to the incident, the factfinder may assign that person a share of the fault.
For example, if you put your hands through a fence to pet a dog, the circumstances may support an argument that you contributed to the injury. That does not automatically make you at fault. What you did, what the dog did, and how the injury happened all matter.
In a straightforward case involving an injured person and one dog owner, an injured person who is less than 50 percent at fault may recover, with the recovery reduced by that person’s percentage of fault. At 50 percent or more, recovery is barred. In a case involving several people, the statute compares the injured person’s fault with the combined fault of the others specified in the law.
An insurance adjuster may argue about percentages during settlement negotiations. If the case goes to trial, the judge or jury decides disputed fault. The adjuster’s opinion is not a court ruling.
Read Utah Code § 18-1-1(1)(b). Read Utah Code § 78B-5-818(1)–(4).
The Trespass Exception Has Specific Requirements
Utah law provides an exception for an injury or death to a trespasser who is violating the criminal trespass provision identified in Utah Code § 76-6-206(2). The injury must occur on the dog owner’s or keeper’s private property while the dog is reasonably secured within a fence or other enclosure.
Those requirements matter. Calling someone a trespasser does not, by itself, end the case. Nor does the mere fact that the bite occurred in a yard or inside a house. The facts must satisfy the statutory exception.
There is a separate exception when a dog injures or kills another animal that entered the owner’s or keeper’s private property without consent, while the dog was reasonably secured within a fence or other enclosure. The statute also provides a limited exception for properly trained and certified law enforcement dogs when all the listed conditions are met.
Read Utah Code § 18-1-1(2), (3)(a), and (3)(b).
Known Vicious Propensities Are Not Required
You do not have to prove that the dog was vicious or that the owner knew the dog was vicious. Utah Code § 18-1-1(1)(a) expressly removes those requirements.
An owner cannot defeat the statutory claim merely by saying, “My dog has never bitten anyone before.” Evidence of earlier attacks may matter to other issues, including what the owner knew, but it is not necessary to establish liability under this provision. The dog’s breed alone does not establish the value of the injured person’s claim.
Read Utah Code § 18-1-1(1)(a)(i)–(ii).
Utah Does Not Give a Dog One Free Bite
People sometimes call this the “one bite rule.” Whatever you have heard about that rule elsewhere, Utah’s statute does not give a dog one free bite before its owner can be held responsible. The first injury can support a claim.
An Actual Bite Is Not Required
The statute covers an injury caused by a dog. It does not limit recovery to teeth breaking skin.
A dog may knock someone down, scratch someone, or cause an injury when the person tries to escape an attack. Someone running from a dog might fall or get cut while climbing a fence. These claims depend on proof that the dog caused the injury, together with any comparative fault or statutory exception that applies.
Owners and Keepers Can Be Responsible
The statute applies to an individual who “owns or keeps” a dog. Ownership is not the only question. A person keeping a dog may also fall within the statute, depending on the facts.
If a kennel door is left open and dogs escape, the investigation should include who owned the dogs and who was keeping them. A business’s responsibility may also involve separate negligence claims. The name on the dog’s registration does not necessarily answer every liability question.
A dog owner can also face liability when a dog escapes and bites someone at a schoolyard or public park. Keeping the dog on a leash does not automatically spare the owner from liability if the dog injures someone.
If two or more dogs belonging to different people act together and cause an injury, Utah law allows the owners or keepers to be joined in the same lawsuit, with damages apportioned among the defendants found liable.
Damages After a Dog Attack
Dog attacks can cause serious physical and mental harm. Children and adults may be left with scars, fear of dogs, and lasting anxiety. The damages are similar in kind to those available in other personal injury cases, including car collisions and slip and fall injuries.
General damages are commonly called noneconomic damages. They include physical pain, emotional suffering, disfigurement, and the effect of the injury on your life. Money cannot erase an attack or a permanent scar, but it is the means our civil courts use to compensate an injured person.
Special damages are the financial losses caused by the injury. These may include ambulance and emergency room bills, follow-up treatment, plastic surgery, counseling, and lost earnings. Future treatment may also be included when supported by the evidence. A $1,500 ambulance bill or a $4,500 emergency room bill is a concrete financial loss. Those figures are examples, not estimates of what any particular case is worth.
Punitive damages are different. They punish qualifying misconduct and are much more difficult to obtain. A dog bite alone does not establish a right to punitive damages. Utah generally requires an award of compensatory or general damages and clear and convincing evidence of the heightened misconduct described in the punitive damages statute, such as knowing and reckless indifference to the rights of others.
Punitive damages are unavailable if the injured person elects the dog attack arbitration procedure discussed below, including in a later trial de novo under that procedure.
The Fifty Thousand Dollar Dog Attack Arbitration Procedure
Utah provides a special arbitration procedure for third-party bodily injury claims resulting from a dog attack. The injured person must first timely file a lawsuit, then file the notice electing arbitration within 14 days after the complaint has been answered, while the lawsuit remains pending.
The bodily injury arbitration award is capped at $50,000, in addition to the medical premise benefits and property damage claims identified in the statute. Electing this procedure also waives recovery against the defendant’s personal assets and limits recovery to available insurance coverage. The $50,000 figure does not guarantee that much insurance exists.
Either party may request a trial de novo, meaning a new trial in court, by filing and serving the required notice within 20 days after service of the arbitration award. A jury trial may be requested in that proceeding. But the election has continuing consequences: a plaintiff-requested trial has a $50,000 verdict cap; a defendant-requested trial has the separate limits stated in the statute. Cost-shifting rules may also apply when the party requesting the new trial fails to improve the result by the required amount.
I would be cautious about electing this procedure in a serious dog attack case, especially one involving permanent scarring, a child, or substantial future treatment. You do not have to elect statutory arbitration. A claim worth more than the procedure allows should be evaluated before giving up rights that may be important to recovery.
Insurance Coverage and Uninsured Dog Owners
Homeowners’ or renters’ liability insurance may cover a dog attack. Coverage may extend to an incident away from the home, including a bite at a park. But the policy controls. Exclusions, restrictions involving particular dogs, business activities, and coverage limits can affect whether insurance pays.
Any serious dog owner should review the policy and confirm whether it covers injuries caused by the dog. A business that keeps dogs should review its business liability coverage as well. Having an insurance policy is not the same as having coverage for every dog attack.
If the owner has no applicable insurance, the injured person may still have a claim against the responsible owner or keeper. Collecting a judgment is a separate question. And if you elect the statutory arbitration procedure, you waive recovery against the defendant’s personal assets. That decision deserves particular care when insurance is absent or disputed.