Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 6-1405 (2026)

Conduct affecting comparative responsibility. 

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Conduct affecting comparative responsibility. 

(1) Failure to discover a defective condition.

(a)  Claimant’s failure to inspect. A claimant is not required to have inspected the product for a defective condition. Failure to have done so does not render the claimant responsible for the harm caused or reduce the claimant’s damages.
(b)  Claimant’s failure to observe an obvious defective condition. When the product seller proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the claimant, while using the product, was injured by a defective condition that would have been obvious to an ordinary reasonably prudent person, the claimant’s damages shall be subject to reduction.
(c)  A nonclaimant’s failure to inspect for defects or to observe an obvious defective condition. A nonclaimant’s failure to inspect for a defective condition or to observe a defective condition that would have been obvious to an ordinary reasonably prudent person, shall not reduce claimant’s damages.
(2)  Use of a product with a known defective condition.
(a)  By a claimant. When the product seller proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the claimant knew about the product’s defective condition, and voluntarily used the product or voluntarily assumed the risk of harm from the product, the claimant’s damages shall be subject to reduction to the extent that the claimant did not act as an ordinary reasonably prudent person under the circumstances.
(b)  By a nonclaimant product user. If the product seller proves by a preponderance of the evidence that a product user, other than the claimant, knew about a product’s defective condition, but voluntarily and unreasonably used or stored the product and thereby proximately caused claimant’s harm, the claimant’s damages shall be subject to apportionment.
(3)  Misuse of a product.
(a)  "Misuse" occurs when the product user does not act in a manner that would be expected of an ordinary reasonably prudent person who is likely to use the product in the same or similar circumstances.
(b)  When the product seller proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that product misuse by a claimant, or by a party other than the claimant or the product seller has proximately caused the claimant’s harm, the claimant’s damages shall be subject to reduction or apportionment to the extent that the misuse was a proximate cause of the harm.
(4)  Alteration or modification of a product.
(a)  "Alteration or modification" occurs when a person or entity other than the product seller changes the design, construction, or formula of the product, or changes or removes warnings or instructions that accompanied or were displayed on the product. "Alteration or modification" of a product includes the failure to observe routine care and maintenance, but does not include ordinary wear and tear.
(b)  When the product seller proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an alteration or modification of the product by the claimant, or by a party other than the claimant or the product seller has proximately caused the claimant’s harm, the claimant’s damages shall be subject to reduction or apportionment to the extent that the alteration or modification was a proximate cause of the harm.
This subsection shall not be applicable if:
1.  The alteration or modification was in accord with the product seller’s instructions or specifications;
2.  The alteration or modification was made with the express or implied consent of the product seller; or
3.  The alteration or modification was reasonably anticipated conduct, and the product was defective because of the product seller’s failure to provide adequate warnings or instructions with respect to the alteration or modification.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: Watson v. Navistar Int'l Transp. Corp., 827 P.2d 656 (Idaho 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Watson v. Navistar Int'l Transp. Corp., 827 P.2d 656 (Idaho 1992). · cites it 13× “(b) Claimant’s failure to observe an obvious defective condition. When the product seller proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the claimant, while using the product, was injured by a defective condition that would have been obvious to an ordinary reasonably prudent…”
Corbridge v. Clark Equip. Co., 730 P.2d 1005 (Idaho 1986). · cites it 6× “The Idaho Products Liability Reform Act, I.C. § 6-1405(3)(a) defines misuse of a product as follows: “Misuse” occurs when the product user does not act in a manner that would be expected of an ordinary reasonably prudent person who is likely to use the product in the same or…”
Tuttle v. Sudenga Indus., Inc., 868 P.2d 473 (Idaho 1994). · cites it 10× “We hold, then, that ruling as a matter of law that the alteration of the auger covers was the sole proximate cause for Tuttle’s injury was inappropriate without careful consideration of the remaining language and necessary findings in I.C. § 6-1405. III. Genuine issues of fact…”
Puckett v. Oakfabco, Inc., 979 P.2d 1174 (Idaho 1999). · cites it 7× “Idaho Code 6-1405 provides: (1) Failure to discover a defective condition.”
Griffin v. Ste. Michelle Wine Estates LTD., 491 P.3d 619 (Idaho 2021). · cites it 10× “Idaho Code § 6-1405 (4)(a) and (b) (emphasis added).”
Corbridge v. Clark Equip. Co., 730 P.2d 1005 (Idaho 1986). · cites it 6× “The Idaho Products Liability Reform Act, I.C. § 6-1405(3)(a) defines misuse of a product as follows: "Misuse" occurs when the product user does not act in a manner that would be expected of an ordinary reasonably prudent person who is likely to use the product in the same or…”
Potter v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., 694 A.2d 1319 (Conn. 1997). “§ 12-683 (2) (West 1992); Idaho Code § 6-1405 (4) (b) (1990); Ind. Code Ann.”
Stark Ex Rel. Jacobsen v. Ford Motor Co., 693 S.E.2d 253 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “" Idaho Code Ann. § 6-1405 (4)(a) (2004). In sum, after reviewing products liability statutes in states other than North Carolina, it appears that the clear language under our statute, N.”
Walsh v. Ford Motor Co., 130 F.R.D. 260 (D.D.C. 1990). “§ 99B-4(1) (1985) (no product liability if "[t]he use of the product giving rise to the product liability action was contrary to any express and adequate instructions or warnings delivered with, appearing on, or at *275 tached to the product”) and Idaho Code § 6-1405 (3)(a)…”
Pate v. Columbia Mach., Inc., 930 F. Supp. 451 (D. Idaho 1996). · cites it 10× “The IPLA goes on to list “conduct affecting comparative responsibility” in the next section, I.C. § 6-1405. The list includes the following: (1) Failure to observe an obvious defective condition; (2) Use of a product with a known defective condition; (3) Misuse of a product; and…”
Adams v. United States, 658 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2011). “This apportionment is also required by Idaho Code § 6-1405 (2)(b). The district court instructed the jury on comparative allocation of fault for Plaintiffs’ failure to warn claims, which is what Idaho law requires.”
Young v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 898 P.2d 61 (Idaho Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “2d 1005, 1007 (1986) (affirming determination on summary judgment that towing a forklift,/loader through deep snow over rough incline was “misuse” of product under I.C. § 6-1405(3)(a) because the undisputed evidence could lead to only one reasonable conclusion, though question…”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Idaho Code § 6-1405(1)(b) — 1 case
Puckett v. Oakfabco, Inc., 979 P.2d 1174 (Idaho 1999). “Idaho Code 6-1405 provides: (1) Failure to discover a defective condition.”
— Idaho Code § 6-1405(2)(a) — 2 cases
Watson v. Navistar Int'l Transp. Corp., 827 P.2d 656 (Idaho 1992). “(b) Claimant’s failure to observe an obvious defective condition. When the product seller proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the claimant, while using the product, was injured by a defective condition that would have been obvious to an ordinary reasonably prudent…”
Pate v. Columbia Mach., Inc., 930 F. Supp. 451 (D. Idaho 1996). “The IPLA goes on to list “conduct affecting comparative responsibility” in the next section, I.C. § 6-1405. The list includes the following: (1) Failure to observe an obvious defective condition; (2) Use of a product with a known defective condition; (3) Misuse of a product; and…”
— Idaho Code § 6-1405(3) — 1 case
Pate v. Columbia Mach., Inc., 930 F. Supp. 451 (D. Idaho 1996). “The IPLA goes on to list “conduct affecting comparative responsibility” in the next section, I.C. § 6-1405. The list includes the following: (1) Failure to observe an obvious defective condition; (2) Use of a product with a known defective condition; (3) Misuse of a product; and…”
— Idaho Code § 6-1405(3)(a) — 4 cases
Corbridge v. Clark Equip. Co., 730 P.2d 1005 (Idaho 1986). “The Idaho Products Liability Reform Act, I.C. § 6-1405(3)(a) defines misuse of a product as follows: “Misuse” occurs when the product user does not act in a manner that would be expected of an ordinary reasonably prudent person who is likely to use the product in the same or…”
Corbridge v. Clark Equip. Co., 730 P.2d 1005 (Idaho 1986). “The Idaho Products Liability Reform Act, I.C. § 6-1405(3)(a) defines misuse of a product as follows: "Misuse" occurs when the product user does not act in a manner that would be expected of an ordinary reasonably prudent person who is likely to use the product in the same or…”
Tuttle v. Sudenga Indus., Inc., 868 P.2d 473 (Idaho 1994). “We hold, then, that ruling as a matter of law that the alteration of the auger covers was the sole proximate cause for Tuttle’s injury was inappropriate without careful consideration of the remaining language and necessary findings in I.C. § 6-1405. III. Genuine issues of fact…”
Young v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 898 P.2d 61 (Idaho Ct. App. 1994). “2d 1005, 1007 (1986) (affirming determination on summary judgment that towing a forklift,/loader through deep snow over rough incline was “misuse” of product under I.C. § 6-1405(3)(a) because the undisputed evidence could lead to only one reasonable conclusion, though question…”
— Idaho Code § 6-1405(4) — 1 case
Tuttle v. Sudenga Indus., Inc., 868 P.2d 473 (Idaho 1994). “We hold, then, that ruling as a matter of law that the alteration of the auger covers was the sole proximate cause for Tuttle’s injury was inappropriate without careful consideration of the remaining language and necessary findings in I.C. § 6-1405. III. Genuine issues of fact…”
— Idaho Code § 6-1405(4)(a) — 1 case
Tuttle v. Sudenga Indus., Inc., 868 P.2d 473 (Idaho 1994). “We hold, then, that ruling as a matter of law that the alteration of the auger covers was the sole proximate cause for Tuttle’s injury was inappropriate without careful consideration of the remaining language and necessary findings in I.C. § 6-1405. III. Genuine issues of fact…”
— Idaho Code § 6-1405(4)(b) — 2 cases
Griffin v. Ste. Michelle Wine Estates LTD., 491 P.3d 619 (Idaho 2021). “Idaho Code § 6-1405 (4)(a) and (b) (emphasis added).”
Johnson v. SRM-Double L, LLC (Idaho 2026).
— Idaho Code § 6-1405(4)(b)(3) — 1 case
Tuttle v. Sudenga Indus., Inc., 868 P.2d 473 (Idaho 1994). “We hold, then, that ruling as a matter of law that the alteration of the auger covers was the sole proximate cause for Tuttle’s injury was inappropriate without careful consideration of the remaining language and necessary findings in I.C. § 6-1405. III. Genuine issues of fact…”
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.