Utah Court of Appeals

Can a kennel manager sue a dog owner for bite injuries under Utah's strict liability statute? Waters v. Powell Explained

2010 UT App 105
No. 20090143-CA
April 29, 2010
Reversed

Summary

Alexis Waters, a kennel manager, was bitten by Steven Powell’s dog Snoop while boarding the dog at her kennel. Waters sued Powell under Utah’s strict liability dog bite statute. The district court denied Powell’s summary judgment motion arguing that Waters was a ‘keeper’ under the statute and therefore precluded from recovery.

Analysis

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed an important question about Utah’s strict liability dog bite statute in Waters v. Powell, determining whether a professional kennel manager could sue a dog owner after being bitten by the owner’s dog while providing boarding services.

Background and Facts

Steven Powell brought his dog Snoop to Alexis Waters’ kennel for boarding in March 2005. While Waters was introducing Snoop to other dogs in a play area, she restrained the dog to prevent it from attacking other animals. Snoop bit Waters during this interaction. Waters filed suit against Powell under Utah Code section 18-1-1, the state’s strict liability dog bite statute, seeking damages for her injuries. Powell moved for summary judgment, arguing that Waters qualified as a “keeper” under the statute and was therefore precluded from recovery.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Waters qualified as a keeper under Utah Code section 18-1-1, which makes “[e]very person owning or keeping a dog” liable for injuries the dog commits. The court needed to determine if a professional kennel manager’s temporary care of a boarded dog established the requisite keeper relationship.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals applied the Utah Supreme Court’s definition from Neztsosie v. Meyer, which defines a keeper as one who “undertakes to manage, control, or care for [the dog] as dog owners in general are accustomed to do.” The court emphasized that keeper status requires “the assumption of custody, management, and control” and “the exercise of a substantial number of incidents of ownership.”

Examining Waters’ undisputed activities—feeding, watering, exercising, cleaning up after the dogs, taking them to relieve themselves, and ensuring their safety—the court concluded these constituted “essentially all of the hallmarks of dog ownership.” The court determined Waters was Snoop’s keeper as a matter of law.

Practice Implications

This decision significantly impacts professional pet care providers in Utah, including kennels, doggy daycares, and boarding facilities. These businesses may find themselves classified as keepers, potentially limiting their ability to recover under the strict liability statute when bitten by animals in their care. Practitioners should carefully analyze the specific care relationship under the Neztsosie standard when evaluating potential claims involving professional animal care providers.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

Waters v. Powell

Citation

2010 UT App 105

Court

Utah Court of Appeals

Case Number

No. 20090143-CA

Date Decided

April 29, 2010

Outcome

Reversed

Holding

A kennel manager who feeds, waters, exercises, and cares for a dog qualifies as a ‘keeper’ under Utah Code section 18-1-1 as a matter of law.

Standard of Review

Questions of law reviewed for correctness

Practice Tip

When representing clients in dog bite cases involving professional pet care providers, thoroughly analyze the care provider’s relationship with the animal under the Neztsosie standard to determine keeper status early in litigation.

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

    Holt v. Holt

    January 11, 2024

    When a stipulated divorce decree awards property with an equity interest payable only ‘when the property is sold’ without specifying a time for sale, Utah contract law implies a reasonable time for performance, which in this case extends to when the recipient ceases operating a business on the property.
    • Appellate Procedure
    • |
    • Contract Interpretation
    • |
    • Property Rights
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    Read More
    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Hinds v. Hinds-Holm

    January 27, 2022

    A district court does not abuse its discretion in awarding custody to the parent more likely to foster the child’s relationship with both parents, even when other factors weigh in favor of the other parent.
    • Appellate Procedure
    • |
    • Child Custody and Parent-Time
    • |
    • 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.