Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 36-1604 (2026)
Limitation of liability of landowner.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Limitation of liability of landowner.
(a) Statement of Purpose. The purpose of this section is to encourage owners of land to make land, airstrips and water areas available to the public without charge for recreational purposes by limiting the owner’s liability toward persons entering the owner’s land for recreational purposes.
(b) Definitions. As used in this section:
(1) "Airstrips" means either improved or unimproved landing areas used by pilots to land, park, take off, unload, load and taxi aircraft. Airstrips shall not include landing areas that are or may become eligible to receive federal funding pursuant to the federal airport and airway improvement act of 1982 and subsequent amendments thereto.
(2) "Governmental entity" shall have the same meaning as provided in section 6-902, Idaho Code.
(3) "Land" means private or public land, roads, airstrips, trails, parks, campgrounds, water, reservoirs, watercourses, hydroelectric dams, irrigation dams, groundwater recharge sites, canals, laterals, ditches, drains, water control structures, headgates, private or public ways and buildings, structures, and machinery or equipment when attached to or used on the land.
(4) "Owner" means the possessor of a fee interest, right-of-way, or easement, a tenant, lessee, licensee, occupant, operator, permit holder, or person in control of, or with a right or duty to maintain, the land.
(5) "Recreational purposes" means the pursuit of personal enjoyment or pleasure on land when done without charge by the owner of the land, including but not limited to any of the following activities or any combination thereof: hunting, fishing, shooting, trapping, swimming, boating, rafting, tubing, camping, picnicking, hiking, pleasure driving, the flying of aircraft, bicycling, running, playing on playground equipment, skateboarding, athletic competition, nature study, waterskiing, animal riding, motorcycling, snowmobiling, operating recreational vehicles and off-highway vehicles, winter sports, viewing or enjoying historical, archeological, scenic, geological or scientific sites, and traveling across or being upon the land incidental to or ancillary to any of the recreational purposes described in this subsection.
(c) Owner Exempt from Warning. An owner of land owes no duty of care to keep the land safe for entry by others for recreational purposes, or to give any warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity on such land to persons entering for such purposes. Neither the installation of a sign or other form of warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity, nor any modification made for the purpose of improving the safety of others, nor the failure to maintain or keep in place any sign, other form of warning, or modification made to improve safety, shall create liability on the part of an owner of land where there is no other basis for such liability.
(d) Owner Assumes No Liability. An owner of land or equipment who either directly or indirectly invites or permits without charge any person to use such property for recreational purposes does not thereby:
(1) Extend any assurance that the land is safe for any purpose.
(2) Confer upon such person the legal status of an invitee or licensee to whom a duty of care is owed.
(3) Assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to person or property caused by an act or omission of such persons.
(e) Provisions Apply to Leased Public Land. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, the provisions of this section shall be deemed applicable to the duties and liability of an owner of land who grants public access for recreational purposes pursuant to a lease or other agreement with a governmental entity as long as the owner of the land does not directly charge individual members of the public for such access, regardless of whether the governmental entity provides the owner with remuneration.
(f) Provisions Apply to Land Subject to a Conservation Easement. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, the provisions of this section shall be deemed applicable to the duties and liability of an owner of land subject to a conservation easement to any governmental entity or nonprofit organization.
(g) Provisions Apply to Funding, Maintenance or Improvements. The provisions of this section shall be deemed applicable to the duties and liability of any governmental entity, nongovernmental organization or person that provides funds, reasonably performs maintenance, reasonably makes or supports improvements, holds conservation easements or takes similar reasonable action regarding land made available to the public without charge for recreational purposes.
(h) Owner Not Required to Keep Land Safe. Nothing in this section shall be construed to:
(1) Create a duty of care or ground of liability for injury to persons or property.
(2) Relieve any person using the land of another for recreational purposes from any obligation which he may have in the absence of this section to exercise care in his use of such land and in his activities thereon, or from legal consequences or failure to employ such care.
(3) Apply to any person or persons who for compensation permit the land to be used for recreational purposes.
(i) User Liable for Damages. Any person using the land of another for recreational purposes, with or without permission, shall be liable for any damage to land, property, livestock or crops that the person may cause while on said land, in addition to all remedies provided in section 6-202, Idaho Code, in the event the person has committed a civil trespass.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2023 · leading case: Johnson v. Sunshine Min. Co., Inc., 684 P.2d 268 (Idaho 1984).
Johnson v. Sunshine Min. Co., Inc., 684 P.2d 268 (Idaho 1984). “This case presents questions of the applicability and the constitutionality of I.C. § 36-1604 which grants a limitation on a landowner's liability to gratuitous recreational users of his property.”
Corey v. State, 703 P.2d 685 (Idaho 1985). “The trial judge granted the motion, holding that the State was immune from liability under I.C. § 36-1604. This appeal followed. Appellants present three issues on appeal.”
McGHEE THROUGH McGHEE v. City of Glenns Ferry, 729 P.2d 396 (Idaho 1986). “The district court granted summary judgment to the city and held that the city was immune from liability pursuant to I.C. § 36-1604. This appeal followed. Summary judgment is appropriate when a review of the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party reveals no…”
Martin Hayes v. City of Plummer, 357 P.3d 1276 (Idaho 2015). “The district court ruled that Idaho’s Recreational Use Statute, Idaho Code section 36-1604, provided limited liability protection because the City did not receive “compensation” or “charge” for the use of the land upon which Hayes was injured.”
Jacobsen v. City of Rathdrum, 766 P.2d 736 (Idaho 1988). “§ 36-1604, Idaho's recreational use statute (the recreational use statute), precludes a claim on behalf of a two-year old child, who suffered irreparable and irreversible brain damage as the result of nearly drowning in a ditch that runs through the city park in Rathdrum (the…”
Nelson Ex Rel. Nelson v. City of Rupert, 911 P.2d 1111 (Idaho 1996). “” The language in subsection (e) of Idaho Code 36-1604 indicates an intent that any waiver of the statute’s application must be clear and unequivocal, i.”
Ambrose Ex Rel. Ambrose v. Buhl Jt. Sch. Dist. 412, 887 P.2d 1088 (Idaho Ct. App. 1994). “Portions of Idaho Code § 36-1604 pertinent to this case state: Limitation of liability of landowner.”
Leland J. Seyler & Aileene Seyler, Husband & Wife v. United States, 832 F.2d 120 (9th Cir. 1987). “In a published memorandum opinion and order, the district court ruled that the United States was not liable for damages arising from Seyler’s motorcycle accident on the Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation because (1) the government is immune from suit under Idaho’s recreational use…”
Albertson v. Fremont Cnty., 834 F. Supp. 2d 1117 (D. Idaho 2011). “The United States has satisfied all of the conditions for immunity under the Idaho Recreational Use Statute, Idaho Code § 36-1604 . However, such immunity is subject to an exception, and the Court has determined that disputed material facts exist as to the question of whether…”
Allen v. State ex rel. Dep't of Parks & Rec., 36 P.3d 1275 (Idaho 2001). “In response to the complaint, the State filed a motion to dismiss the action contending that the State is protected from liability under Idaho’s recreational land use statute, I.C. § 36-1604. Under the statute, a landowner assumes no liability for inviting or permitting any…”
Allen v. Blaine Cnty., 953 P.2d 578 (Idaho 1998). “§ 50-1301(3) to include “lessee,” it would have done so, as it did in section 36-1604 of the Idaho Code which sets forth the extent of a landowner’s liability.”
Northcutt v. Sun Valley Co., 787 P.2d 1159 (Idaho 1990). “" I.C. § 36-1604(c) (Supp. 1989). There, we held: The appropriate test to review a statute such as this is the rational basis test, which requires only that the statute "advances legitimate legislative goals in a rational fashion.”
— Idaho Code § 36-1604(a) — 7 cases
Jacobsen v. City of Rathdrum, 766 P.2d 736 (Idaho 1988). “§ 36-1604, Idaho's recreational use statute (the recreational use statute), precludes a claim on behalf of a two-year old child, who suffered irreparable and irreversible brain damage as the result of nearly drowning in a ditch that runs through the city park in Rathdrum (the…”
Martin Hayes v. City of Plummer, 357 P.3d 1276 (Idaho 2015). “The district court ruled that Idaho’s Recreational Use Statute, Idaho Code section 36-1604, provided limited liability protection because the City did not receive “compensation” or “charge” for the use of the land upon which Hayes was injured.”
Johnson v. Sunshine Min. Co., Inc., 684 P.2d 268 (Idaho 1984). “This case presents questions of the applicability and the constitutionality of I.C. § 36-1604 which grants a limitation on a landowner's liability to gratuitous recreational users of his property.”
Ambrose Ex Rel. Ambrose v. Buhl Jt. Sch. Dist. 412, 887 P.2d 1088 (Idaho Ct. App. 1994). “Portions of Idaho Code § 36-1604 pertinent to this case state: Limitation of liability of landowner.”
Albertson v. Fremont Cnty., 834 F. Supp. 2d 1117 (D. Idaho 2011). “The United States has satisfied all of the conditions for immunity under the Idaho Recreational Use Statute, Idaho Code § 36-1604 . However, such immunity is subject to an exception, and the Court has determined that disputed material facts exist as to the question of whether…”
— Idaho Code § 36-1604(aHd) — 1 case
Jacobsen v. City of Rathdrum, 766 P.2d 736 (Idaho 1988). “§ 36-1604, Idaho's recreational use statute (the recreational use statute), precludes a claim on behalf of a two-year old child, who suffered irreparable and irreversible brain damage as the result of nearly drowning in a ditch that runs through the city park in Rathdrum (the…”
— Idaho Code § 36-1604(b)(1) — 1 case
Ambrose Ex Rel. Ambrose v. Buhl Jt. Sch. Dist. 412, 887 P.2d 1088 (Idaho Ct. App. 1994). “Portions of Idaho Code § 36-1604 pertinent to this case state: Limitation of liability of landowner.”
— Idaho Code § 36-1604(b)(2) — 2 cases
Allen v. Blaine Cnty., 953 P.2d 578 (Idaho 1998). “§ 50-1301(3) to include “lessee,” it would have done so, as it did in section 36-1604 of the Idaho Code which sets forth the extent of a landowner’s liability.”
Nelson Ex Rel. Nelson v. City of Rupert, 911 P.2d 1111 (Idaho 1996). “” The language in subsection (e) of Idaho Code 36-1604 indicates an intent that any waiver of the statute’s application must be clear and unequivocal, i.”
— Idaho Code § 36-1604(b)(3) — 4 cases
Jacobsen v. City of Rathdrum, 766 P.2d 736 (Idaho 1988). “§ 36-1604, Idaho's recreational use statute (the recreational use statute), precludes a claim on behalf of a two-year old child, who suffered irreparable and irreversible brain damage as the result of nearly drowning in a ditch that runs through the city park in Rathdrum (the…”
Albertson v. Fremont Cnty., 834 F. Supp. 2d 1117 (D. Idaho 2011). “The United States has satisfied all of the conditions for immunity under the Idaho Recreational Use Statute, Idaho Code § 36-1604 . However, such immunity is subject to an exception, and the Court has determined that disputed material facts exist as to the question of whether…”
Tomich v. City of Pocatello, 901 P.2d 501 (Idaho 1995).
Allen v. State ex rel. Dep't of Parks & Rec., 36 P.3d 1275 (Idaho 2001). “In response to the complaint, the State filed a motion to dismiss the action contending that the State is protected from liability under Idaho’s recreational land use statute, I.C. § 36-1604. Under the statute, a landowner assumes no liability for inviting or permitting any…”
— Idaho Code § 36-1604(b)(4) — 1 case
Magee v. J.R. Simplot Co. (D. Idaho 2020).
— Idaho Code § 36-1604(c) — 3 cases
Northcutt v. Sun Valley Co., 787 P.2d 1159 (Idaho 1990). “" I.C. § 36-1604(c) (Supp. 1989). There, we held: The appropriate test to review a statute such as this is the rational basis test, which requires only that the statute "advances legitimate legislative goals in a rational fashion.”
Martin Hayes v. City of Plummer, 357 P.3d 1276 (Idaho 2015). “The district court ruled that Idaho’s Recreational Use Statute, Idaho Code section 36-1604, provided limited liability protection because the City did not receive “compensation” or “charge” for the use of the land upon which Hayes was injured.”
Magee v. J.R. Simplot Co. (D. Idaho 2020).
— Idaho Code § 36-1604(d) — 5 cases
Martin Hayes v. City of Plummer, 357 P.3d 1276 (Idaho 2015). “The district court ruled that Idaho’s Recreational Use Statute, Idaho Code section 36-1604, provided limited liability protection because the City did not receive “compensation” or “charge” for the use of the land upon which Hayes was injured.”
Albertson v. Fremont Cnty., 834 F. Supp. 2d 1117 (D. Idaho 2011). “The United States has satisfied all of the conditions for immunity under the Idaho Recreational Use Statute, Idaho Code § 36-1604 . However, such immunity is subject to an exception, and the Court has determined that disputed material facts exist as to the question of whether…”
Nelson Ex Rel. Nelson v. City of Rupert, 911 P.2d 1111 (Idaho 1996). “” The language in subsection (e) of Idaho Code 36-1604 indicates an intent that any waiver of the statute’s application must be clear and unequivocal, i.”
Allen v. State ex rel. Dep't of Parks & Rec., 36 P.3d 1275 (Idaho 2001). “In response to the complaint, the State filed a motion to dismiss the action contending that the State is protected from liability under Idaho’s recreational land use statute, I.C. § 36-1604. Under the statute, a landowner assumes no liability for inviting or permitting any…”
Magee v. J.R. Simplot Co. (D. Idaho 2020).
— Idaho Code § 36-1604(d)(2) — 3 cases
Johnson v. Sunshine Min. Co., Inc., 684 P.2d 268 (Idaho 1984). “This case presents questions of the applicability and the constitutionality of I.C. § 36-1604 which grants a limitation on a landowner's liability to gratuitous recreational users of his property.”
Jacobsen v. City of Rathdrum, 766 P.2d 736 (Idaho 1988). “§ 36-1604, Idaho's recreational use statute (the recreational use statute), precludes a claim on behalf of a two-year old child, who suffered irreparable and irreversible brain damage as the result of nearly drowning in a ditch that runs through the city park in Rathdrum (the…”
Noel v. City of Rigby, 462 P.3d 103 (Idaho 2020).
— Idaho Code § 36-1604(e) — 3 cases
Martin Hayes v. City of Plummer, 357 P.3d 1276 (Idaho 2015). “The district court ruled that Idaho’s Recreational Use Statute, Idaho Code section 36-1604, provided limited liability protection because the City did not receive “compensation” or “charge” for the use of the land upon which Hayes was injured.”
Nelson Ex Rel. Nelson v. City of Rupert, 911 P.2d 1111 (Idaho 1996). “” The language in subsection (e) of Idaho Code 36-1604 indicates an intent that any waiver of the statute’s application must be clear and unequivocal, i.”
Allen v. State ex rel. Dep't of Parks & Rec., 36 P.3d 1275 (Idaho 2001). “In response to the complaint, the State filed a motion to dismiss the action contending that the State is protected from liability under Idaho’s recreational land use statute, I.C. § 36-1604. Under the statute, a landowner assumes no liability for inviting or permitting any…”
— Idaho Code § 36-1604(g) — 2 cases
Johnson v. Sunshine Min. Co., Inc., 684 P.2d 268 (Idaho 1984). “This case presents questions of the applicability and the constitutionality of I.C. § 36-1604 which grants a limitation on a landowner's liability to gratuitous recreational users of his property.”
Magee v. J.R. Simplot Co. (D. Idaho 2020).
— Idaho Code § 36-1604(g)(3) — 1 case
Martin Hayes v. City of Plummer, 357 P.3d 1276 (Idaho 2015). “The district court ruled that Idaho’s Recreational Use Statute, Idaho Code section 36-1604, provided limited liability protection because the City did not receive “compensation” or “charge” for the use of the land upon which Hayes was injured.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.