Utah Code
Utah Code § 78B-6-702 (2026)
Definitions
✓ laws through the 2026 General Session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
UT-LEGle.utah.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
As used in this part:
"ADS-equipped vehicle" means the same as that term is defined in Section 41-26-102.1.
"Automated driving system" means the same as that term is defined in Section 41-26-102.1.
"State of the art knowledge" means the technical, mechanical, and scientific knowledge of manufacturing, designing, testing, or labeling the same or similar products that was in existence and reasonably feasible for use at the time of manufacture.
"Unreasonably dangerous" means that the product was dangerous to an extent beyond which would be contemplated by the ordinary and prudent buyer, consumer, or user of that product in that community considering the product's characteristics, propensities, risks, dangers, and uses together with any actual knowledge, training, or experience possessed by that particular buyer, user, or consumer.
Amended by Chapter 286, 2026 General Session
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2010–2025 · leading case: Fortune v. Techtronic Indus. North Am., 107 F. Supp. 3d 1199 (D. Utah 2015).
Fortune v. Techtronic Indus. North Am., 107 F. Supp. 3d 1199 (D. Utah 2015). “Under Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-702, “unreasonably dangerous” means that the product was dangerous to an extent beyond which would be contemplated by the ordinary and prudent buyer, consumer, or user of that product in that community considering the product’s characteristics,…”
Riggs v. Asbestos Corp., 2013 UT App 86, 304 P.3d 61. “(quoting Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-702 *69 (2008)) (current version at Utah Code Ann.”
Niemela v. Imperial Mfg., Inc., 2011 UT App 333, 263 P.3d 1191. “user of that product ... considering the product's characteristics, propensities, risks, dangers, and uses together with any actual knowledge, training, or experience possessed by" Niemela.”
Bylsma v. R.C.WilleyHumanTouch, 2017 UT 85, 416 P.3d 595. “§ 78B-6-702. 22 Id. § 78B-6-703. 23 Id. § 78B-6-704.”
Egbert v. Nissan Motor Co., 2010 UT 8, 228 P.3d 737. “The definition of "unreasonably dangerous" is now located at Utah Code section 78B-6-702. 6 . Of course, if the legislature were to reenact or revise and recodify a statute ruled unconstitutional and the constitutional defect remained within the statute, that statute would still…”
Gudmundson v. Del Ozone, 2010 UT 33, 232 P.3d 1059. “§ 78B-6-702. ¶48 Ms. Gudmundson argued to the district court that the generator lacked certain features that made it unreasonably dangerous: an ambient air monitor and an automatic shut-off valve.”
Feasel v. Tracker Marine, 2020 UT App 28, 460 P.3d 145. “” Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-702 (LexisNexis 2018).”
Hercules Indus. v. Yogapipe, No. 2:22-cv-00027 (D. Utah Oct. 10, 2023). “On behalf of YogaPipe, ES Gallagher asserted in its Petition in the German court that all pipes bought from WRW from 2017-19 were defective on account of manufacturing errors.”
James v. iMoney Tools LLC, 785 F. Supp. 3d 1041 (D. Utah 2025). “But this is not an element of a design defect claim that a plaintiff must plead in its complaint to survive a motion to dismiss; it is a part of the standard the court applies at summary judgment.”
Groesbeck v. Bumbo Int'l Trust, 129 F. Supp. 3d 1259 (D. Utah 2015). “” Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-702. Plaintiffs assert that Dr.”
Bylsma v. R.C.WilleyHumanTouch, 2017 UT 85. “§ 78B-6-702. 22 Id. § 78B-6-703. 23 Id. § 78B-6-704.”
Johns v. CR Bard, No. 2:18-cv-01509 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 1, 2020). “Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-702. Courts have interpreted this language as encompassing “an objective consumer expectations test supplemented with a subjective test based on “‘individual knowledge, training, and experience of the particular buyer.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.