Utah Code » Title 78B, Chapter 6 — Particular Proceedings; part 78B-6-7 — Utah Product Liability Act
Utah Code

Utah Code § 78B-6-703 (2026)

Defect or defective condition making product unreasonably dangerous -- Rebuttable presumption

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section UT-LEGle.utah.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In any action for damages for personal injury, death, or property damage allegedly caused by a defect in a product other than an ADS-dedicated vehicle or an ADS-equipped vehicle described in Subsections (3) and (4), a product may not be considered to have a defect or to be in a defective condition, unless at the time the product was sold by the manufacturer or other initial seller, there was a defect or defective condition in the product which made the product unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer.
There is a rebuttable presumption that a product described in Subsection (1) is free from any defect or defective condition where the alleged defect in the plans or designs for the product or the methods and techniques of manufacturing, inspecting and testing the product were in conformity with government standards established for that industry which were in existence at the time the plans or designs for the product or the methods and techniques of manufacturing, inspecting and testing the product were adopted.
In any action for damages for personal injury, death, or property damage allegedly caused by a defect in the automated driving system operation of a level four ADS or level five ADS of an ADS-equipped vehicle or an ADS-dedicated vehicle, the automated driving system may not be considered to have a defect or to be in a defective condition, unless the plaintiff proves by a preponderance of the evidence that:
a reasonable and feasible alternative design existed at the time the level four ADS or level five ADS was designed and manufactured; and
the use of the automated driving system, at scale and in the aggregate, causes more injuries to persons than would be caused by humans performing a similar task, at scale and in the aggregate, without an automated driving system.
There is a rebuttable presumption that a level four ADS or level five ADS is free from any defect or defective condition if the automated driving system:
conforms to all applicable U.S. federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards in effect on the date of the vehicle's manufacture; and
was authorized for use or operation in the state.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2008–2026 · leading case: Niemela v. Imperial Mfg., Inc., 2011 UT App 333 (Utah Ct. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Niemela v. Imperial Mfg., Inc., 2011 UT App 333 (Utah Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 6× “Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-703(1) (2008). As defined by the Act, the standard for "unreasonably dangerous" focuses on consumer expectations: As used in this part, "unreasonably dangerous" means that the product was dangerous to an extent beyond which would be contemplated by the…”
Gudmundson v. Del Ozone, 2010 UT 33 (Utah 2010). · cites it 4× “12 Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-703(l) (2008). The Act defines a product as “unreasonably dangerous” if it 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…”
Utah Local Gov't Trust v. Wheeler Mach. Co., 2008 UT 84 (Utah 2008). · cites it 4× “The statute states: In any action for damages for personal injury, death, or property damage allegedly caused by a defect in a product, a product may not be considered to have a defect or to be in a defective condition, unless at the time the product was sold by the manufacturer…”
In re Accutane Litig., 194 A.3d 503 (N.J. 2018). “1991) ); Utah (Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-703(2) ; Egbert v.”
Bylsma v. R.C.WilleyHumanTouch, 2017 UT 85 (Utah 2017). “§ 78B-6-703. 23 Id. § 78B-6-704. 24 Although the PLA was originally enacted prior to the LRA, it has been amended and reenacted several times since the passage of the LRA.”
Smith v. Volkswagen Southtowne, 2022 UT 29 (Utah 2022). “3d 258 (citation omitted); see also UTAH CODE § 78B-6-703. Liability in these cases rests on the defective product itself, and not on any underlying negligence.”
Egbert v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., 2010 UT 8 (Utah 2010). · cites it 2× “It renumbered section 78-15-6 as section 78B-6-703. We refer to the previous numbering for clarity in our analysis and because this case was brought before the recodification.”
Fortune v. Techtronic Indus. North Am., 107 F. Supp. 3d 1199 (D. Utah 2015). · cites it 4× “Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-703. . Id. § 78B-6-702.”
Riggs v. Asbestos Corp. Ltd., 2013 UT App 86 (Utah Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “§ 78B-6-703 (2008) (current version at Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-708 (LexisNexis 2012)) (Utah Product Liability Act)).”
Herrod v. Metal Powder Prods., 413 F. App'x 7 (10th Cir. 2010). “Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-703; Burns v. Cannondale Bicycle Co.”
Hale (D. Utah 2026). · cites it 2× “Here, the undisputed evidence establishes that the accident ladder was designed and manufactured in accordance with government standards.”
In Re: Accutane Litig. (mcl Case No. 271, Atl. Cnty. & Statewide) (Consol.) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017). “18 Those presumptions, however, appear 18 See Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-703 (2017) (rebuttable presumption that product is free from any defect where in conformance with 69 A-4760-14T1 different from New Jersey's because courts in those states have not applied their rebuttable…”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— Utah Code § 78B-6-703(1) — 5 cases
Niemela v. Imperial Mfg., Inc., 2011 UT App 333 (Utah Ct. App. 2011). “Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-703(1) (2008). As defined by the Act, the standard for "unreasonably dangerous" focuses on consumer expectations: As used in this part, "unreasonably dangerous" means that the product was dangerous to an extent beyond which would be contemplated by the…”
Utah Local Gov't Trust v. Wheeler Mach. Co., 2008 UT 84 (Utah 2008). “The statute states: In any action for damages for personal injury, death, or property damage allegedly caused by a defect in a product, a product may not be considered to have a defect or to be in a defective condition, unless at the time the product was sold by the manufacturer…”
Salt Lake City Corp. v. Sekisui SPR Americas (D. Utah 2019).
WebNX Inc v. Cummins Inc (D. Utah 2024).
Bertola v. Fisher-Price (Del. Super. Ct. 2025).
— Utah Code § 78B-6-703(2) — 3 cases
Niemela v. Imperial Mfg., Inc., 2011 UT App 333 (Utah Ct. App. 2011). “Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-703(1) (2008). As defined by the Act, the standard for "unreasonably dangerous" focuses on consumer expectations: As used in this part, "unreasonably dangerous" means that the product was dangerous to an extent beyond which would be contemplated by the…”
In re Accutane Litig., 194 A.3d 503 (N.J. 2018). “1991) ); Utah (Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-703(2) ; Egbert v.”
Fortune v. Techtronic Indus. North Am., 107 F. Supp. 3d 1199 (D. Utah 2015). “Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-703. . Id. § 78B-6-702.”
— Utah Code § 78B-6-703(l) — 1 case
Gudmundson v. Del Ozone, 2010 UT 33 (Utah 2010). “12 Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-703(l) (2008). The Act defines a product as “unreasonably dangerous” if it 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…”
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.