Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 6-801 (2026)
Comparative negligence or comparative responsibility — Effect of contributory negligence.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Comparative negligence or comparative responsibility — Effect of contributory negligence.
Contributory negligence or comparative responsibility shall not bar recovery in an action by any person or his legal representative to recover damages for negligence, gross negligence or comparative responsibility resulting in death or in injury to person or property, if such negligence or comparative responsibility was not as great as the negligence, gross negligence or comparative responsibility of the person against whom recovery is sought, but any damages allowed shall be diminished in the proportion to the amount of negligence or comparative responsibility attributable to the person recovering. Nothing contained herein shall create any new legal theory, cause of action, or legal defense.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 94
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: Odenwalt v. Zaring, 624 P.2d 383 (Idaho 1980).
Odenwalt v. Zaring, 624 P.2d 383 (Idaho 1980). “The trial court, relying on I.C. § 6-801, entered judgment on the verdict in favor of Odenwalt against the association for $40,350.”
Harrison v. Taylor, 768 P.2d 1321 (Idaho 1989). “I.C. § 6-801. [1] In Salinas v. Vierstra, 107 Idaho 984 , 695 P.”
Baker v. Shavers, Inc., 791 P.2d 1275 (Idaho 1990). “I.C. § 6-801 (1979). By applying Harrison retroactively in Arrington , we have carried out the intention of the legislature by extending the comparative negligence rule to those invitees who have been injured since the comparative negligence statute went into effect.”
Salinas v. Vierstra, 695 P.2d 369 (Idaho 1985). “Subsequent to Fawcett, supra, Idaho enacted its own comparative negligence statute, I.C. § 6-801. [11] The statute does away with the illogical and unfair results often reached by the "all-or-nothing" rule of the contributory negligence defense.”
Vannoy v. Uniroyal Tire Co., 726 P.2d 648 (Idaho 1986). “2d 383 (1980), this Court was faced with a specific issue of interpretation of the comparative negligence statute, I.C. § 6-801. The Court stated: "The above statute, enacted in 1971, is virtually identical to the Wisconsin comparative negligence statute in effect in 1971.”
Coghlan v. Beta Theta Pi Fraternity, 987 P.2d 300 (Idaho 1999). “§ 23-808 impermissibly revives the doctrine of contributory negligence in the State of Idaho contrary to the command of I.C. § 6-801, which provides that comparative negligence applies in negligence actions.”
Tucker v. Union Oil Co. of California, 603 P.2d 156 (Idaho 1979). “Collier Carbon contends that the enactment of our comparative negligence statutes, I.C. § 6-801 to -806, together with general principles of equity and fairness require that its liability for damages should be based on its proportionate share of fault.”
Robertson v. Magic Valley Reg'l Med. Ctr., 793 P.2d 211 (Idaho 1990). “I.C. § 6-801." 115 Idaho at 591 , 768 P.2d at 1324 .”
Cramer v. Slater, 204 P.3d 508 (Idaho 2009). “” This Court has not specifically adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 457 and we now determine that the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 457 and I.C. § 6-801 are not inconsistent and the two rules of law may co-exist in Idaho.”
Forbush v. Sagecrest Multi Fam. Prop. Owners' Ass'n, 396 P.3d 1199 (Idaho 2017). “2d 95, 98 (1965), superseded on other grounds by I.C. § 6-801, we explained: Owners or persons in charge of property owe to an invitee or business visitor the duty to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition, or to warn the invitee of hidden or concealed dangers of which…”
Olsen v. J.A. Freeman Co., 791 P.2d 1285 (Idaho 1990). “I.C. § 6-801. Olsen's injury did not occur until after the statute of repose was enacted, and as such, a cognizable liberty or property interest has not been affected.”
Ross v. Coleman Co., Inc., 761 P.2d 1169 (Idaho 1988). “Because Ross’s negligence, as found by the jury, was equal to or greater than either of the defendants’ negligence, he was not entitled to recover against either Coast or Coleman under Idaho’s comparative negligence statute, I.C. § 6-801. After the jury returned its verdict,…”
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.