Utah Supreme Court hears argument on whether landlords owe duty for tenant’s vicious dog after off‑property attack

SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah Supreme Court on Tuesday heard arguments in Tesh v. Bonneville Investment Properties over whether a landlord can owe a duty of reasonable care when a tenant’s dog attacks someone off the rental property.

Robert Gibbons, counsel for the plaintiff, argued the general rule that “landlords have a duty to act with reasonable care” applies when a tenant keeps a dog with vicious tendencies. Gibbons told the court the issue should go to a jury because a landlord may have known — or should have known — about the dog’s behavior and retained enough control over the premises to take steps to prevent injury.

That argument framed both factual questions and legal doctrine. Gibbons invoked Utah cases he said establish a landlord’s duty of reasonable care and asked the court to treat the dispute either as a premises condition question under principles like those in Restatement Second of Torts Section 360 or as an activities‑based claim under Restatement Second of Torts Section 379(a). He said the record includes neighbor affidavits, evidence that the landlord visited the property repeatedly, and earlier animal‑control calls, and that those facts could let a jury infer knowledge…