Can landowners be liable for construction site fires that spread to neighboring properties? Rosser v. Elite Craft Homes Explained

In Rosser v. Elite Craft Homes, the Utah Court of Appeals established an important new duty of care for landowners engaged in construction activities. When a fire at Elite Craft Homes’ construction site spread to a neighboring residence, destroying the home and killing the residents’ pets, the question arose whether construction companies owe any duty to adjacent property owners.

Background and facts: Elite was constructing a four-story apartment building adjacent to Rosser and Kilburn’s home. The construction site remained accessible after hours, and Elite was aware that unauthorized individuals had previously accessed the site. On the evening of June 28, 2021, security cameras captured people entering and leaving the construction site before a fire began inside the building, ultimately spreading to and destroying the neighboring home.

Key legal issues: The central question was whether Elite owed a duty of care to neighboring landowners. The district court granted summary judgment on all claims, finding no duty existed to protect neighbors from harm caused by third-party criminal acts. Residents argued Elite’s construction activities constituted affirmative acts creating foreseeable risks.

Court’s analysis and holding: The court applied the five-factor test from B.R. ex rel. Jeffs v. West to determine whether to recognize a new categorical duty. Three factors supported imposing a duty: foreseeability (construction activities create many foreseeable risks to neighbors), ability to bear the loss (landowners have sole control over their property), and public policy (construction creates temporary hazards within the builder’s control). The court established that “landowners owe a duty to adjoining landowners and inhabitants to exercise reasonable care when they engage in construction activities on their property.”

Practice implications: This decision significantly expands potential liability for construction companies and property developers in Utah. Practitioners should advise construction clients to implement comprehensive security measures and consider additional insurance coverage. The court declined to adopt a negligent trespass claim, finding such conduct adequately covered by general negligence principles. The decision also remanded the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim for further factual development.