## Facts

- Judith Campbell Jackson saw a “yellow tiger tabby” cat on the second-story deck of her home and believed it was one of her four cats.
- Jackson opened a sliding door, called the cat, and began petting it; she then realized it was not her cat.
- The cat bit Jackson’s right hand.
- Jackson had a medically stable autoimmune disorder that was allegedly aggravated by infection from the bite, leading to multiple surgeries and over $40,000 in medical expenses.
- For summary-judgment purposes, Robert and Kris Mateus conceded they owned the cat.
- The undisputed record showed the cat had never previously bitten anyone and had not shown vicious or aggressive tendencies.
- Jackson sued the Mateuses for negligence, alleging they were negligent in allowing their cat to roam freely and attack her.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the Mateuses on the ground that they owed no duty to prevent the attack.

## Issues

1. Whether, under common-law negligence principles governing owners of domestic animals (including Restatement (Second) of Torts § 518), the Mateuses owed a duty to restrain a nonvicious cat.
2. Whether Salt Lake County animal-control ordinances imposed a duty to restrain the cat or supported negligence per se for the cat bite.
3. Whether Utah’s dog-bite statute, Utah Code Ann. § 18-1-1, applied (or could be extended) to impose liability for injuries caused by a cat.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the Mateuses.
- The court held the Mateuses owed Jackson no duty under common law, county ordinances, or the dog-bite statute to restrain their cat under these circumstances.
- Because duty was absent as a matter of law, Jackson’s negligence claim failed.

## Legal Principles

- In Utah negligence law, duty depends in substantial part on whether the type of harm was reasonably foreseeable.
- For harm caused by a domestic animal that is not abnormally dangerous, a duty to confine or control generally turns on whether the owner knew or had reason to know of dangerous propensities, or whether harm was otherwise reasonably foreseeable.
- A single bite by a domestic cat with no history of aggression, where the injured person voluntarily approached and petted the cat, may be unforeseeable as a matter of law, negating a duty to restrain.
- Municipal ordinances support negligence per se only if they apply to the defendant’s conduct and were intended to prevent the type of harm suffered; animal-control ordinances do not automatically create broad tort duties beyond common law.
- Utah’s dog-bite statute applies to dogs according to its text and purpose and does not extend to cats absent legislative action.

## Conclusion

The Utah Supreme Court held that owners of a nonvicious domestic cat had no legal duty to restrain the cat under common law, local ordinances, or Utah’s dog-bite statute where the bite was not reasonably foreseeable, so summary judgment for the owners was proper.


Jackson v. Mateus, 70 P.3d 78 (Utah 2003)