Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Liability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah House rejects reconsideration of dog‑liability bill after rural lawmakers warn of impacts on working dogs
Summary
The House voted down final passage of SB62, a bill extending the window for dog‑bite claims, after representatives from rural districts warned a longer look‑back could expose livestock owners and working‑dog handlers to undue litigation; the motion failed 15‑16.
The Utah House of Representatives rejected final passage of Senate Bill 62, which would have extended the period for dog‑related liability claims from three to four years, after a floor reconsideration and debate on Feb. 14.
Representative Ron Hawkins moved to reconsider the bill, saying he feared the change “opens the door for a lot of litigation around dog bites.” Rural lawmakers said the additional year would be particularly harmful to owners of working livestock dogs. “Those dogs are trained to nip at the heels of cows to move them forward,” Representative Lund said. “To have a 4‑year look back on a dog bite, that’s a long, long time to … say, ‘oh, this caused me problems.’”
Representative Tiara Chu, who described a family livelihood in ranching and livestock‑protective dogs, said the animals “are not in any way vicious, but they could be accused of being that” and expressed concern about being forced to litigate incidents years later.
Representative Andrew Stoddard noted the existing statute is a three‑year limitation and said that provision is located in another section of code. Floor debate framed the measure as a balance between victim remedies and the practical realities of rural animal husbandry.
The House opened final passage and voting closed with SB62 failing to pass the chamber by a recorded tally of 15 yes votes and 16 no votes. The bill will be returned to staff for filing.
