exculpatory clause in Idaho

2025This Court recognized this premise in Jesse v. Lindsley: “courts look with disfavor on such attempts to avoid liability and construe such provisions strictly against the person relying on them, especially when that person is the preparer of the document.” 149 Idaho 70, 75 , 233 P.3d 1, 6 (2008) (analyzing an exculpatory clause in a real property lease).

2025This Court recognized this premise in Jesse v. Lindsley: “courts look with disfavor on such attempts to avoid liability and construe such provisions strictly against the person relying on them, especially when that person is the preparer of the document.” 149 Idaho 70, 75 , 233 P.3d 1, 6 (2008) (analyzing an exculpatory clause in a real property lease).

2012In fact, the clause did not even include the word “negligence.” In Rawlings v. Layne & Bowler Pump Co., 93 Idaho 496 , 465 P.2d 107 (1970), the landowner entered into a contract for the purchase and installation of irrigation pumping machinery.

2012In fact, the clause did not even include the word “negligence.” In Rawlings v. Layne & Bowler Pump Co., 93 Idaho 496 , 465 P.2d 107 (1970), the landowner entered into a contract for the purchase and installation of irrigation pumping machinery.

2016“This Court has repeatedly held: ‘To properly raise an issue on appeal there must either be an adverse ruling by the court below or the issue must have been raised in the court below, an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.’” Bank of Commerce v. Jefferson Enters., LLC, 154 Idaho 824, 828 , 303 P.3d 183, 187 (2013) (quoting Garner v. Bartschi, 139 Idaho 430, 436 , 80 P.3d 1031, 1037 (2003)).

2016“This Court has repeatedly held: ‘To properly raise an issue on appeal there must either be an adverse ruling by the court below or the issue must have been raised in the court below, an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.’” Bank of Commerce v. Jefferson Enters., LLC, 154 Idaho 824, 828 , 303 P.3d 183, 187 (2013) (quoting Garner v. Bartschi, 139 Idaho 430, 436 , 80 P.3d 1031, 1037 (2003)).

2016“This Court has repeatedly held: ‘To properly raise an issue on appeal there must either be an adverse ruling by the court below or the issue must have been raised in the court below, an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.’” Bank of Commerce v. Jefferson Enters., LLC, 154 Idaho 824, 828 , 303 P.3d 183, 187 (2013) (quoting Garner v. Bartschi, 139 Idaho 430, 436 , 80 P.3d 1031, 1037 (2003)).

2016“This Court has repeatedly held: ‘To properly raise an issue on appeal there must either be an adverse ruling by the court below or the issue must have been raised in the court below, an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.’” Bank of Commerce v. Jefferson Enters., LLC, 154 Idaho 824, 828 , 303 P.3d 183, 187 (2013) (quoting Garner v. Bartschi, 139 Idaho 430, 436 , 80 P.3d 1031, 1037 (2003)).

2012Newcomb, Inc., 100 Idaho 175, 178 , 595 P.2d 709, 712 (1979), this Court stated, “Clauses which exclude liability must speak clearly and directly to the particular conduct of the defendant which caused the harm at issue.” That language can be misinterpreted, because neither that case nor the cases it cited nor our subsequent cases have held that an exculpatory clause must list the specific, allegedly negligent conduct at issue.

2012Newcomb, Inc., 100 Idaho 175, 178 , 595 P.2d 709, 712 (1979), this Court stated, “Clauses which exclude liability must speak clearly and directly to the particular conduct of the defendant which caused the harm at issue.” That language can be misinterpreted, because neither that case nor the cases it cited nor our subsequent cases have held that an exculpatory clause must list the specific, allegedly negligent conduct at issue.

2012In that case, the court stated “that clauses which purport to exclude liability for negligence must speak clearly and directly to the conduct at issue,” id. at 994, which it explained as meaning that an exculpatory clause would not cover negligence unless the wording was broad enough to include future negligent conduct within its scope.

2012In that case, the court stated "that clauses which purport to exclude liability for negligence must speak clearly and directly to the conduct at issue," id. at 994, which it explained as meaning that an exculpatory clause would not cover negligence unless the wording was broad enough to include future negligent conduct within its scope.

2008The legislature has enacted Idaho Code § 6-320 , which is "a statutory version of the implied warranty of habitability theory," Worden v. Ordway, 105 Idaho 719, 723 , 672 P.2d 1049, 1053 (1983).

2008The legislature has enacted Idaho Code § 6-320 , which is "a statutory version of the implied warranty of habitability theory," Worden v. Ordway, 105 Idaho 719, 723 , 672 P.2d 1049, 1053 (1983).

1998The exculpatory clause provided: "Tenant agrees that ... upon the termination of this lease the demised premises will be in substantially as good condition as received, loss by fire, tornado, earthquake or any unavoidable casualty and ordinary wear and tear excepted." Id. at 464.

1998The exculpatory clause provided: “Tenant agrees that ... upon the termination of this lease the demised premises will be in substantially as good condition as received, loss by fire, tornado, earthquake or any unavoidable casualty and ordinary wear and tear excepted.” Id. at 464.