Utah Court of Appeals

Do utility holes in manufactured homes create products liability? Dimick v. OHC Liquidation Trust Explained

2007 UT App 73
No. 20050969-CA
March 1, 2007
Affirmed

Summary

Reid and Christopher Dimick sued OHC Liquidation Trust after Catherine Dimick died from hantavirus and Christopher became disabled from the same virus allegedly contracted when they toured a manufactured home with deer mouse droppings. The trial court granted summary judgment on all claims, finding the plaintiffs failed to establish that utility holes in the home constituted a design defect.

Analysis

In Dimick v. OHC Liquidation Trust, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether utility holes in manufactured homes can constitute design defects under Utah’s strict products liability statute.

Background and Facts

Reid and Christopher Dimick toured a manufactured home on a sales lot that had been displayed outdoors for almost two years. During their tour, they observed deer mouse nests and droppings in a bedroom closet. Christopher purchased the home, but both he and his mother Catherine subsequently contracted hantavirus from exposure to the mouse droppings. Catherine died from the virus, while Christopher became permanently disabled. The plaintiffs sued the manufacturer, alleging that thirty to fifty utility holes purposely drilled for piping, utility, and venting connections created a design defect that allowed infected mice to enter the home.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the utility holes rendered the manufactured home unreasonably dangerous under Utah Code section 78-15-6. Under Utah’s strict products liability law, plaintiffs must demonstrate that the product was unreasonably dangerous due to a defect, that the defect existed when sold, and that the defective condition caused the plaintiff’s injuries.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment. The court held that the utility holes did not constitute an unreasonably dangerous design defect because “ordinary and prudent buyers” of homes should understand that any home is susceptible to insects and rodents, especially a manufactured home left vacant on a lot. The court emphasized that there was little reason to believe the home would not have been susceptible to rodents even without the pre-drilled utility holes.

Practice Implications

This decision illustrates the importance of establishing that an alleged design defect creates dangers beyond those contemplated by ordinary users. For products liability claims, practitioners must present specific evidence showing how the alleged defect rendered the product unreasonably dangerous compared to similar products or ordinary consumer expectations.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

Dimick v. OHC Liquidation Trust

Citation

2007 UT App 73

Court

Utah Court of Appeals

Case Number

No. 20050969-CA

Date Decided

March 1, 2007

Outcome

Affirmed

Holding

Utility holes drilled in a manufactured home for piping and venting connections do not constitute an unreasonably dangerous design defect under Utah’s products liability statute where ordinary and prudent buyers would contemplate that homes are susceptible to insects and rodents.

Standard of Review

Correctness for summary judgment determinations; some measure of deference for admissibility of evidence determinations; broad discretion for trial court management of case proceedings

Practice Tip

When challenging summary judgment on strict products liability claims, ensure you have specific evidence that the alleged design defect rendered the product unreasonably dangerous beyond what an ordinary purchaser would contemplate.

Need Appellate Counsel?

Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Related Court Opinions

    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Mariposa v. United Shipping

    January 31, 2013

    District courts must stay rather than dismiss complaints when compelling arbitration under the Utah Arbitration Act.
    • Appellate Procedure
    • |
    • Contract Interpretation
    Read More
    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Klein v. Klein

    November 20, 2025

    A district court acts within its discretion when imputing income to both parties in an alimony determination based on their respective capacities to earn, and documentary evidence is not required to establish need for alimony when sufficient sworn testimony supports the court’s findings.
    • Child Support and Alimony
    • |
    • Evidence and Admissibility
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    Read More
About these Decision Summaries

Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.