Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 6-904 (2026)

Exceptions to governmental liability.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Exceptions to governmental liability.

A governmental entity and its employees while acting within the course and scope of their employment and without malice or criminal intent shall not be liable for any claim which:

1. Arises out of any act or omission of an employee of the governmental entity exercising ordinary care, in reliance upon or the execution or performance of a statutory or regulatory function, whether or not the statute or regulation be valid, or based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a governmental entity or employee thereof, whether or not the discretion be abused.

2. Arises out of the imposition or establishment of a quarantine by a governmental entity, whether such quarantine relates to persons or property.

3. Arises out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights.

4. Arises out of the activities of the Idaho national guard when engaged in training or duty under sections 316, 502, 503, 504, 505 or 709, title 32, United States Code.

5. Arises out of the activities of the Idaho national guard when engaged in combatant activities during a time of war.

6. Arises out of or results from riots, unlawful assemblies, public demonstrations, mob violence or civil disturbances.

7. Arises out of a plan or design for construction or improvement to the highways, roads, streets, bridges, or other public property where such plan or design is prepared in substantial conformance with engineering or design standards in effect at the time of preparation of the plan or design or approved in advance of the construction by the legislative body of the governmental entity or by some other body or administrative agency, exercising discretion by authority to give such approval.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 137 cases (21 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: Teurlings v. Larson, 320 P.3d 1224 (Idaho 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Teurlings v. Larson, 320 P.3d 1224 (Idaho 2014). · cites it 140× “Idaho Code § 6-904 (4) provides immunity for National Guard members when they are considered federal employees and the scope of “engaged in training or duty” is coextensive with the interpretation of this phrase within the FTCA.”

Doe v. Durtschi, 716 P.2d 1238 (Idaho 1986). · cites it 50× “I.C. § 6-904 does not merely exclude liability for assaults and batteries; rather, it states that the governmental entity "shall not be liable for any claim which arises out *1253 of assault, battery.”

Leliefeld v. Johnson, 659 P.2d 111 (Idaho 1983). · cites it 56× “Subsection 8 of I.C. § 6-904 was amended in 1978, after the trial and judgment in this case.”

Chandler Supply Co., Inc. v. City of Boise, 660 P.2d 1323 (Idaho 1983). · cites it 78× “) I.C. § 6-904 contains several exceptions to the basic rule of governmental liability established under I.”

Woodworth v. State Ex Rel. Idaho Transp. Bd., 298 P.3d 1066 (Idaho 2013). · cites it 115× “§ 9-604(7). In response, the State argues that Woodworth’s argument fails because “it mischaracterizes the Appellant’s own cause of action and, as a result, mistakenly asserts that Idaho Code § 6-904 (7) is not on point.”

Melene James v. City of Boise, 376 P.3d 33 (Idaho 2016). · cites it 36× “I.C. § 6-904. The district court held that the Defendants were not liable for these claims because there was no evidence that they acted with malice or criminal intent.”

Jones v. City of St. Maries, 727 P.2d 1161 (Idaho 1986). · cites it 54× “Most importantly, and as previously illustrated, such a derivation would convert to mere surplusage those expressly enumerated exceptions found in I.C. § 6-904 which involve `traditional' governmental functions.”

Brown v. City of Pocatello, 229 P.3d 1164 (Idaho 2010). · cites it 26× “Idaho Code § 6-904 (7) Immunity In addition to alleging that the district court erred in finding that Brown had not sufficiently pled claims for nuisance and inverse condemnation, Brown also alleges that the district court erred in finding that Pocatello enjoyed immunity from…”

Lawton v. City of Pocatello, 886 P.2d 330 (Idaho 1994). · cites it 31× “At trial, the City claimed immunity pursuant to both I.C. §§ 6-904(1), (7). Although it is not clear whether it relied on one provision or both, the district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for directed verdict on the issue of immunity.”

Lawton v. City of Pocatello, 886 P.2d 330 (Idaho 1994). · cites it 31× “At trial, the City claimed immunity pursuant to both I.C. §§ 6-904(1), (7). Although it is not clear whether it relied on one provision or both, the district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for directed verdict on the issue of immunity.”

Walker v. Shoshone Cnty., 739 P.2d 290 (Idaho 1987). · cites it 36× “However, the act also provides for exceptions to liability in I.C. § 6-904. The exception at issue today is I.”

Harris v. State, Dept. of Health, 847 P.2d 1156 (Idaho 1992). · cites it 22× “PROLOGUE Idaho Code § 6-904 , enacted in 1988, spells out seven (7) differing sets of circumstances relative to a governmental entity and its employees being named as defendants in a filed tort claim based on allegations of negligence, but specifically provides for government…”

Show all 137 citing cases →

— Idaho Code § 6-904(1) — 45 cases

Chandler Supply Co., Inc. v. City of Boise, 660 P.2d 1323 (Idaho 1983). “) I.C. § 6-904 contains several exceptions to the basic rule of governmental liability established under I.”

Jones v. City of St. Maries, 727 P.2d 1161 (Idaho 1986). “Most importantly, and as previously illustrated, such a derivation would convert to mere surplusage those expressly enumerated exceptions found in I.C. § 6-904 which involve `traditional' governmental functions.”

Walker v. Shoshone Cnty., 739 P.2d 290 (Idaho 1987). “However, the act also provides for exceptions to liability in I.C. § 6-904. The exception at issue today is I.”

Leliefeld v. Johnson, 659 P.2d 111 (Idaho 1983). “Subsection 8 of I.C. § 6-904 was amended in 1978, after the trial and judgment in this case.”

Ransom v. City of Garden City, 743 P.2d 70 (Idaho 1987).

— Idaho Code § 6-904(3) — 35 cases

Melene James v. City of Boise, 376 P.3d 33 (Idaho 2016). “I.C. § 6-904. The district court held that the Defendants were not liable for these claims because there was no evidence that they acted with malice or criminal intent.”

Hoffer v. City of Boise, 257 P.3d 1226 (Idaho 2011).

Duffin v. Idaho Crop Improvement Ass'n, 895 P.2d 1195 (Idaho 1995).

Beco Constr. Co. v. City of Idaho Falls, 865 P.2d 950 (Idaho 1993).

Evans v. Twin Falls Cnty., 796 P.2d 87 (Idaho 1990).

— Idaho Code § 6-904(4) — 12 cases

Teurlings v. Larson, 320 P.3d 1224 (Idaho 2014). “Idaho Code § 6-904 (4) provides immunity for National Guard members when they are considered federal employees and the scope of “engaged in training or duty” is coextensive with the interpretation of this phrase within the FTCA.”

Doe v. Durtschi, 716 P.2d 1238 (Idaho 1986). “I.C. § 6-904 does not merely exclude liability for assaults and batteries; rather, it states that the governmental entity "shall not be liable for any claim which arises out *1253 of assault, battery.”

Anderson v. City of Pocatello, 731 P.2d 171 (Idaho 1987).

Oppenheimer Indus., Inc. v. Johnson Cattle Co., 732 P.2d 661 (Idaho 1987).

Sharon R. Hammer v. Nils Ribi, 401 P.3d 148 (Idaho 2017).

— Idaho Code § 6-904(5) — 1 case

Baca v. State, 810 P.2d 720 (Idaho 1991).

— Idaho Code § 6-904(6) — 1 case

Sterling v. Bloom, 723 P.2d 755 (Idaho 1986).

— Idaho Code § 6-904(7) — 12 cases

Woodworth v. State Ex Rel. Idaho Transp. Bd., 298 P.3d 1066 (Idaho 2013). “§ 9-604(7). In response, the State argues that Woodworth’s argument fails because “it mischaracterizes the Appellant’s own cause of action and, as a result, mistakenly asserts that Idaho Code § 6-904 (7) is not on point.”

Brown v. City of Pocatello, 229 P.3d 1164 (Idaho 2010). “Idaho Code § 6-904 (7) Immunity In addition to alleging that the district court erred in finding that Brown had not sufficiently pled claims for nuisance and inverse condemnation, Brown also alleges that the district court erred in finding that Pocatello enjoyed immunity from…”

Lawton v. City of Pocatello, 886 P.2d 330 (Idaho 1994). “At trial, the City claimed immunity pursuant to both I.C. §§ 6-904(1), (7). Although it is not clear whether it relied on one provision or both, the district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for directed verdict on the issue of immunity.”

Lawton v. City of Pocatello, 886 P.2d 330 (Idaho 1994). “At trial, the City claimed immunity pursuant to both I.C. §§ 6-904(1), (7). Although it is not clear whether it relied on one provision or both, the district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for directed verdict on the issue of immunity.”

Zimmerman v. City of Lewiston, 302 P.3d 26 (Idaho 2013).

— Idaho Code § 6-904(8) — 13 cases

Leliefeld v. Johnson, 659 P.2d 111 (Idaho 1983). “Subsection 8 of I.C. § 6-904 was amended in 1978, after the trial and judgment in this case.”

Bingham v. Idaho Dep't of Transp., 786 P.2d 538 (Idaho 1989).

Gavica v. Hanson, 608 P.2d 861 (Idaho 1980).

Garrett Freightlines, Inc. v. Bannock Paving Co., 735 P.2d 1033 (Idaho 1987).

— Idaho Code § 6-904(A)(2) — 1 case

Harris v. State, Dept. of Health, 847 P.2d 1156 (Idaho 1992). “PROLOGUE Idaho Code § 6-904 , enacted in 1988, spells out seven (7) differing sets of circumstances relative to a governmental entity and its employees being named as defendants in a filed tort claim based on allegations of negligence, but specifically provides for government…”

— Idaho Code § 6-904(B) — 1 case

Hill v. Cnty. of Benewah (D. Idaho 2020).

— Idaho Code § 6-904(C)(2) — 1 case

— Idaho Code § 6-904(l) — 1 case

Bingham v. Franklin Cnty., 796 P.2d 527 (Idaho 1990).

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.