Do landowners owe a duty to neighbors during construction activities? Rosser v. Elite Craft Homes Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals established a significant new duty in Rosser v. Elite Craft Homes, holding that landowners must exercise reasonable care toward neighboring landowners when engaging in construction activities. This decision provides important guidance for construction liability cases and establishes clearer boundaries for landowner responsibilities.

Background and Facts
Elite Craft Homes was constructing a four-story apartment building adjacent to residents Jeremy Rosser and Brandon Kilburn’s home. The construction site lacked perimeter fencing and was accessible to unauthorized individuals after hours. Elite knew that unhoused individuals frequently accessed the site, having previously discovered makeshift shelters and finding people inside the building. On June 28, 2021, a fire started at the construction site and spread to the residents’ home, killing their pets and destroying their property. The residents sued for negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, trespass, and nuisance.

Key Legal Issues
The primary issue was whether Elite owed a duty of care to neighboring landowners when no special legal relationship existed between the parties. The court applied the five-factor Jeffs test to determine whether to recognize a new categorical duty: (1) affirmative act versus omission, (2) legal relationship, (3) foreseeability, (4) which party can best bear the loss, and (5) general policy considerations.

Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court concluded that three Jeffs factors supported imposing a duty. First, harm to neighbors from construction activities is generally foreseeable, including risks from falling trees, landslides, utility breaks, and structural collapse. Second, landowners are best positioned to prevent construction-related harm because they have sole control over their property and legal authority to take protective measures. Third, policy considerations favor the duty because landowners can reasonably manage construction risks, and denying duty would allow unreasonable conduct without consequences. The court distinguished negligent trespass, declining to recognize it as a separate cause of action since such claims are adequately covered by general negligence law.

Practice Implications
This decision significantly expands potential liability for construction activities. Practitioners representing construction companies and landowners should ensure comprehensive risk management protocols during construction, including adequate site security and hazard mitigation measures. For plaintiffs’ attorneys, this ruling provides a clear pathway for claims against neighboring construction activities that cause harm. The court’s emphasis on the categorical nature of duty analysis reminds practitioners to frame arguments broadly rather than focusing on specific factual circumstances when seeking to establish new duties.