Utah Product Liability Act Explained: 'Unreasonably Dangerous,' Presumptions, and Deadlines
General information, not legal advice. Read the full disclaimer.
Short answer: Utah has a statute for these cases — the Utah Product Liability Act (Utah Code Title 78B, Chapter 6, Part 7). To win a claim for personal injury, death, or property damage caused by a product defect, you must show that when the product was sold by the manufacturer or other initial seller, it had a defect that made it "unreasonably dangerous" to the user or consumer. The Act also creates a rebuttable presumption that a product is free from defects if its design and manufacturing methods conformed to government standards existing when they were adopted, and it sets a two-year deadline running from when you discovered both the harm and its cause.
Who this guide is for
People hurt by a defective product — a tool, a vehicle component, a household appliance, a child's product, a battery — and families of people killed by one.
What "unreasonably dangerous" means
The statute defines it: the product was dangerous to an extent beyond what an ordinary and prudent buyer, consumer, or user of that product in that community would contemplate, considering the product's characteristics, propensities, risks, dangers, and uses, together with any actual knowledge, training, or experience of the particular buyer or user. In other words, the test looks at what ordinary users expect — and what you knew.
When the defect must exist
A product isn't "defective" under the Act unless there was a defect or defective condition at the time it was sold by the manufacturer or other initial seller. Injuries from wear, misuse, or changes made after sale are harder to pin on the manufacturer.
The government-standards presumption
There is a rebuttable presumption that a product is free from any defect if the alleged defect in the plans or designs, or in the methods of manufacturing, inspecting, and testing, conformed to government standards established for that industry that existed when those plans or methods were adopted. You can rebut the presumption with evidence — for example, that the standard was outdated, didn't address the hazard, or wasn't actually followed — but it shifts the starting point.
"State of the art"
The Act defines "state of the art knowledge" as the technical, mechanical, and scientific knowledge of manufacturing, designing, testing, or labeling the same or similar products that existed and was reasonably feasible for use at the time of manufacture. Manufacturers use it to argue a safer design wasn't feasible; plaintiffs use it to show feasible alternatives existed.
Alterations and misuse
For purposes of Utah's comparative-fault statute, "fault" includes an alteration or modification of the product after sale that changed its purpose, use, function, design, or intended use or manner of use from what it was designed, tested, or intended for (§ 78B-6-705). If a modification or misuse contributed to your injury, a jury can assign part of the fault to it, which reduces what you recover. See Utah's Several-Liability Rule and Utah's Comparative Fault Rule.
The deadline: two years from discovery
A civil action under the Act must be brought within two years from the time the claimant discovered, or in the exercise of due diligence should have discovered, both the harm and its cause (§ 78B-6-706). Some summaries of Utah law cite longer deadlines for product claims (for example, six years); the Act's own limitation period is two years, so don't assume more time. Contract-based warranty claims have separate deadlines. See Utah Personal Injury Statute of Limitations.
Other features of the Act
- No dollar figure in the complaint. A complaint in a product liability action against a manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer shall not specify a dollar amount; it merely prays for damages that are reasonable (§ 78B-6-704).
- Indemnification clauses are void. A clause in a sales contract or collateral document that requires a purchaser or end user to indemnify, hold harmless, or defend a manufacturer is void and unenforceable if a design or manufacturing defect causes an injury or death (§ 78B-6-707).
- Automated driving systems. The 2026 amendments add special rules for vehicles with high-level automated driving systems. See Utah Self-Driving Vehicle Accident Claims.
Who can be sued
Typical defendants include the manufacturer, component-part makers, wholesalers, and retailers in the chain of distribution. The comparative-fault statute lets the jury allocate fault among them, and each pays its share.
Evidence to preserve
- The product itself — don't discard, repair, or alter it. See Utah Defective Product Claims: Deadlines and Evidence.
- Packaging, manuals, warnings, and receipts.
- Photos and video of the product, the scene, and your injuries.
- Recall notices and complaints about the same product.
- Medical records.
Frequently asked questions
What do I have to prove in a Utah defective product case?
That the product was defective and unreasonably dangerous when sold, and that the defect caused your injury.
How long do I have to sue?
Two years from when you discovered, or should have discovered, both the harm and its cause.
Does following government standards protect the manufacturer?
It creates a rebuttable presumption that the product wasn't defective, which you can try to rebut.
What if I modified the product?
An alteration after sale that changed its use or function can be counted as fault and reduce your recovery.