Utah Builds a Prima Facie Case Out of Thirty Minutes and Ten Miles

Last reviewed September 2026

Utah’s Alcoholic Product Liability Act reaches commercial providers on an apparently-under-the-influence standard, and then supplies something no other state on this list does: a prima facie case assembled from the last drink, the clock and the map.

Utah Code § 32B-15-201

Section 32B-15-201 sits in Chapter 15 of Title 32B, the Alcoholic Product Liability Act, in the part headed Liability. The Act is drafted around a “provider” acting as part of a commercial sale or service rather than around a license category.

Utah’s Alcoholic Product Liability Act reaches a provider who, as part of a commercial sale or service, directly gives, sells or otherwise provides an alcoholic product where those actions cause the intoxication of an individual under 21, “an individual who is apparently under the influence of an alcoholic product or drug,” an individual the provider “knew or should have known from the circumstances was under the influence,” or a known interdicted person, and the injury or death results from that intoxication.

Standard for liability

Four recipient conditions are listed and any one will do: under twenty-one; apparently under the influence of an alcoholic product or drug; a person the provider “knew or should have known from the circumstances was under the influence”; or a known interdicted person. The second and third sit side by side, which means Utah offers both an appearance route and a constructive-knowledge route to the same element.

The inclusion of drugs alongside alcohol is worth marking. Utah’s condition is being under the influence “of an alcoholic product or drug,” which widens what a server is expected to register beyond the signs alcohol alone produces.

Utah then supplies something no other state on this list does: a prima facie case built from time and distance. It is prima facie evidence of liability where the provider gave the individual the last alcoholic product consumed before the injury, the product was consumed at that location, and “the injury or death occurs within 30 minutes after the time at which the individual leaves, and within a 10 mile radius of,” that location, together with a charge or a post-mortem blood-alcohol finding the section specifies.

That provision changes how a Utah case is investigated. Counsel establishing the last place of service, the departure time and the distance to the incident is not building context; they are building the statutory prima facie case. The corollary is that a venue defending one has to attack the same three facts.

Social hosts

The liability in subsection (1) attaches to provision made “as part of the commercial sale, storage, service, manufacture, distribution, or consumption of an alcoholic product.” That framing is directed at commercial provision rather than at private hospitality.

The chapter contains its own related provisions, including one on staff who refuse service in their independent judgment and one on governmental immunity. Counsel should read the part as a whole rather than the single section, and should confirm the current text.

Minors

An individual under twenty-one is the first of the four recipient conditions, and it requires no finding about appearance or knowledge — the age of the person whose intoxication the provision caused is the condition.

The prima facie provision, by its terms, attaches to the appearance and constructive-knowledge conditions rather than to the underage one. Counsel should read the subsection carefully on that point rather than assume the time-and-distance shortcut is available in every case.

Training, responsible-vendor, and safe-harbor provisions

Section 32B-15-201 contains no training requirement and no safe-harbor defense. Utah’s training obligations sit in its licensing law, and they are unusually wide — reaching the person supervising the service as well as the person pouring — but they are not a shield under this section.

Training evidence goes to the constructive-knowledge condition. Where the question is what the provider “knew or should have known from the circumstances,” what the venue taught its staff to look for, and whether the staff and the supervisors on that shift had been taught it, is evidence on the element itself.

Operational evidence commonly examined in Utah cases

• The time the guest left and the location of the incident, which together with the last-drink question make up the statutory prima facie case.
• Which provider served the last alcoholic product consumed before the injury, established across outlets rather than assumed.
• Whether consumption occurred at the location where the product was provided, which the prima facie provision requires.
• Any charge brought against the individual, or a post-incident blood-alcohol finding, as the subsection specifies.
• Training records for servers and for supervisors, given the breadth of Utah’s training obligations.
• Seasonal hiring and induction dates against the schedule, which in a resort town is where the gap appears.
• Whether drug impairment was in play, since the statutory condition covers being under the influence of a drug.

The expert’s role

Utah’s prima facie provision rewards precise operational reconstruction: which outlet served last, whether it was consumed there, and when the guest left. In a resort property those three facts are spread across a folio, a point-of-sale system and a door record, and assembling them is most of the work. Preston Rideout completed Utah’s Responsible Alcohol Server programme through DABS and consulted for a Park City venue, which is the seasonal resort format in which these questions arise.

Preston Rideout completed Responsible Alcohol Server (DABS) for Utah; what that lets him evaluate in a Utah matter, and the records it makes discoverable, is set out at Utah certified expert witness.

Primary sources

• Utah Code § 32B-15-201(1)(c), le.utah.gov
• Utah Code § 32B-15-201(1), le.utah.gov

Questions counsel ask