11 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Idaho courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Harrison v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2016Specifically, the Court of Appeals discussed this Court’s decision in Harrison , a case in which this Court abolished the open and obvious danger doctrine 4 and confirmed that owners and occupiers of land will be under a duty of ordinary care toward invitees who come upon their premises. 115 Idaho at 595-96 , 768 P.2d at 1328-29 . 2016Specifically, the Court of Appeals discussed this Court’s decision in Harrison , a case in which this Court abolished the open and obvious danger doctrine 4 and confirmed that owners and occupiers of land will be under a duty of ordinary care toward invitees who come upon their premises. 115 Idaho at 595-96 , 768 P.2d at 1328-29 . | 2 | 7 |
Alsup v. Saratoga Hotel, Inc.green2 sentences2016Alsup v. Saratoga Hotel, 71 Idaho 229, 236 , 229 P.2d 985, 989 (1951). 2016Alsup v. Saratoga Hotel, 71 Idaho 229, 236 , 229 P.2d 985, 989 (1951). | 2 | 2 |
Keller v. Holiday Inns, Inc.green2 sentences1990As noted in Harrison v. Taylor , our Court of Appeals in its opinion in Keller v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 105 Idaho 649, 656-57 , 671 P.2d 1112, 1119-20 (Ct.App. 1983), pointed out the inconsistency between the open and obvious danger doctrine and comparative negligence. 115 Idaho at 592, 768 P.2d at 1325 . 1990As noted in Harrison v. Taylor , our Court of Appeals in its opinion in Keller v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 105 Idaho 649, 656-57 , 671 P.2d 1112, 1119-20 (Ct.App. 1983), pointed out the inconsistency between the open and obvious danger doctrine and comparative negligence. 115 Idaho at 592, 768 P.2d at 1325 . | 2 | 2 |
Salinas v. Vierstragreen2 sentences2012We held that I.C. § 6-801 abi’ogated the open and obvious danger doctrine because the statute mandates that, as long as negligence of the party from whom recovery is sought exceeds that of the claimant, the claimant’s responsibility for his or her injury “shall not bar recovery.” Id. at 596, 768 P.2d at 1329 ; see also Salinas v. Vierstra, 107 Idaho 984 , 695 P.2d 369 (1985) (holding that 1.C. § 6-801 abrogated the assumption of risk doctrine except in cases where the plaintiff expressly assumes the risk). 2012We held that I.C. § 6-801 abi’ogated the open and obvious danger doctrine because the statute mandates that, as long as negligence of the party from whom recovery is sought exceeds that of the claimant, the claimant’s responsibility for his or her injury “shall not bar recovery.” Id. at 596, 768 P.2d at 1329 ; see also Salinas v. Vierstra, 107 Idaho 984 , 695 P.2d 369 (1985) (holding that 1.C. § 6-801 abrogated the assumption of risk doctrine except in cases where the plaintiff expressly assumes the risk). | 1 | 2 |
Arrington v. Arrington Bros. Construction, Inc.green2 sentences1990In Harrison this Court retired the open and obvious danger doctrine, overruling prior cases to the extent that they conflicted with Harrison , and adopted the principle that “[h]enceforward, owners and occupiers of land will be under a duty of ordinary care under the circumstances toward invitees that come upon their premises.” 116 Idaho at 891, 781 P.2d at 228 . 1990In Harrison this Court retired the open and obvious danger doctrine, overruling prior cases to the extent that they conflicted with Harrison , and adopted the principle that "[h]enceforward, owners and occupiers of land will be under a duty of ordinary care under the circumstances toward invitees that come upon their premises." 116 Idaho at 891, 781 P.2d at 228 . | 1 | 2 |
Otts v. Broughgreen2 sentences1989Such duty, however, only requires the exercise of ordinary care, and does not extend to dangers which are known to the invitee, or which are, or by exercise of ordinary care, should have been observed by the invitee. 90 Idaho at 131-32 , 409 P.2d at 102-03 (emphasis added). 1989Such duty, however, only requires the exercise of ordinary care, and does not extend to dangers which are known to the invitee, or which are, or by exercise of ordinary care, should have been observed by the invitee. 90 Idaho at 131-32 , 409 P.2d at 102-03 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Parker v. Highland Park, Inc.green2 sentences1989See Parker v. Highland Park, Inc., 565 S.W.2d 512, 518 (Tex.1978). 1989See also, Parker v. Highland Park, Inc., 565 S.W.2d 512, 518 (Tex.1978). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Baker v. Shavers, Inc.
green
2 sentences1990For the reasons set out in my concurring and dissenting opinion in Baker v. Shavers, Inc., 117 Idaho 696 , 791 P.2d 1275 (1990), neither the open and obvious danger doctrine nor the related natural accumulation rule, which holds that there is no duty on a landowner to remove or warn of the natural accumulation of ice and snow where it is open and obvious to the invitee, are in any way affected by the comparative negligence statute adopted by the Idaho legislature in 1971. 1990The issue had never been raised in any of the numerous cases decided by this Court which had reaffirmed the open and obvious danger doctrine, including our opinion in Bates v. Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center, supra , which occurred only months prior to the Harrison decision. [2] Accordingly, I believe that the Court today errs when it concludes that "there could have been no [justifiable] reliance on the doctrine in the face of a challenge under I.C. § 6-801." Ante at 698, 791 P.2d at 1277 . | 3 | 1990–1994 |
Bates v. Eastern Idaho Regional Med. Ctr.
green
2 sentences1990Bates v. Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center, 114 Idaho 252 , 755 P.2d 1290 (1988). 1990Bates v. Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center, 114 Idaho 252 , 755 P.2d 1290 (1988). | 2 | 1990–1990 |
Robertson v. Magic Valley Regional Medical Center
green
2 sentences2012Our decision in Robertson v. Magic Valley Regional Medical Center followed closely upon the heels of Harrison and expressly recognized that I.C. § 6-801’s abrogation of the open and obvious danger doctrine included abrogation of the natural accumulation rule. 117 Idaho at 981 , 793 P.2d at 213 . 3 Thus, I.C. § 6-801 abrogated the holding in Pearson that owners and occupiers of land are generally not liable for injuries caused by natural accumulations of snow and ice. 2012Our decision in Robertson v. Magic Valley Regional Medical Center followed closely upon the heels of Harrison and expressly recognized that I.C. § 6-801’s abrogation of the open and obvious danger doctrine included abrogation of the natural accumulation rule. 117 Idaho at 981 , 793 P.2d at 213 . 3 Thus, I.C. § 6-801 abrogated the holding in Pearson that owners and occupiers of land are generally not liable for injuries caused by natural accumulations of snow and ice. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Watson v. Navistar International Transportation Corp.
green
2 sentences1999This Court has held that I.C. § 6-1405 1 incorporated the doctrine of open and obvious danger “as a component part of the comparative negligence theory.” Watson, 121 Idaho at 660 , 827 P.2d at 673 . 1999This Court has held that I.C. § 6-1405 1 incorporated the doctrine of open and obvious danger “as a component part of the comparative negligence theory.” Watson, 121 Idaho at 660 , 827 P.2d at 673 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Cereck v. Albertson's Inc.
green
2 sentences1990Cereck v. Albertson's, Inc., 195 Mont. 409 , 637 P.2d 509 (1981); O'Donnell v. City of Casper, 696 P.2d 1278 (Wyo. 1985). 1990Cereck v. Albertson's, Inc., 195 Mont. 409 , 637 P.2d 509 (1981); O'Donnell v. City of Casper, 696 P.2d 1278 (Wyo. 1985). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Tommerup v. Albertson's, Inc.
green
2 sentences1990Tommerup v. Albertson's, Inc., 101 Idaho 1 , 607 P.2d 1055 (1980). 1990Tommerup v. Albertson's, Inc., 101 Idaho 1 , 607 P.2d 1055 (1980). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
O'DONNELL v. City of Casper
green
2 sentences1990Cereck v. Albertson's, Inc., 195 Mont. 409 , 637 P.2d 509 (1981); O'Donnell v. City of Casper, 696 P.2d 1278 (Wyo. 1985). 1990Cereck v. Albertson’s, Inc., 195 Mont. 409 , 637 P.2d 509 (1981); O’Donnell v. City of Casper, 696 P.2d 1278 (Wyo. 1985). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Feeny v. Hanson
green
2 sentences1989The relationship between the open and obvious danger doctrine and the complete bar created by contributory negligence, which our Court of Appeals scrutinized in Keller, supra, becomes apparent from a close reading of the critical language in Otts v. Brough, supra: * * * the duty to keep the premises safe for an invitee extends to all portions of the premises which it is necessary and convenient for the invitee to visit or use in pursuing the course of business for which the invitation was extended and at which his presence should reasonably be anticipated or to which he is allowed to go. [Citi 1989The relationship between the open and obvious danger doctrine and the complete bar created by contributory negligence, which our Court of Appeals scrutinized in Keller, supra, becomes apparent from a close reading of the critical language in Otts v. Brough, supra: * * * the duty to keep the premises safe for an invitee extends to all portions of the premises which it is necessary and convenient for the invitee to visit or use in pursuing the course of business for which the invitation was extended and at which his presence should reasonably be anticipated or to which he is allowed to go. [Citi | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Keller v. Holiday Inns, Inc.
green
2 sentences1989The other line, represented by Ryals v. Broadbent, 98 Idaho 392 , 565 P.2d 982 (1977) and Keller v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 107 Idaho 593 , 691 P.2d 1208 (1984), holds that there is an exception to the open and obvious danger defense when the injured party encounters a known danger while acting in the course of employment. 1989The other line, represented by Ryals v. Broadbent, 98 Idaho 392 , 565 P.2d 982 (1977) and Keller v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 107 Idaho 593 , 691 P.2d 1208 (1984), holds that there is an exception to the open and obvious danger defense when the injured party encounters a known danger while acting in the course of employment. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Ryals v. Broadbent Development Co.
green
2 sentences1989The other line, represented by Ryals v. Broadbent, 98 Idaho 392 , 565 P.2d 982 (1977) and Keller v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 107 Idaho 593 , 691 P.2d 1208 (1984), holds that there is an exception to the open and obvious danger defense when the injured party encounters a known danger while acting in the course of employment. 1989The other line, represented by Ryals v. Broadbent, 98 Idaho 392 , 565 P.2d 982 (1977) and Keller v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 107 Idaho 593 , 691 P.2d 1208 (1984), holds that there is an exception to the open and obvious danger defense when the injured party encounters a known danger while acting in the course of employment. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.