Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 6-904B (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 and without gross negligence or reckless, willful and wanton conduct as defined in section 6-904C, Idaho Code, shall not be liable for any claim which:

1. Arises out of the detention of any goods or merchandise by any law enforcement officer.

2. Arises out of the cancellation or rescission, or the failure to cancel or rescind, any motor vehicle registration and license plates for failure of the owner to verify or maintain motor vehicle liability insurance coverage.

3. Arises out of the issuance, denial, suspension or revocation of, or failure or refusal to issue, deny, suspend, or revoke a permit, license, certificate, approval, order or similar authorization.

4. Arises out of the failure to make an inspection, or the making of an inadequate inspection of any property, real or personal, other than the property of the governmental entity performing the inspection.

5. Arises out of any act or omission providing or failing to provide medical care to a prisoner or person in the custody of any city, county or state jail, detention center or correctional facility.

6. Arises out of a decision of the state commission of pardons and parole or its executive director when carrying out the business of the commission.

7. Arises out of a decision, act or omission of a city, county, the Idaho board of correction or Idaho department of correction when carrying out duties and responsibilities as set forth in chapter 8, title 20, Idaho Code.

8. Arises out of the operation of a sport shooting range as defined in section 6-2701, Idaho Code.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 20 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: Nelson v. Anderson Lumber Co., 99 P.3d 1092 (Idaho Ct. App. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nelson v. Anderson Lumber Co., 99 P.3d 1092 (Idaho Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 8× “Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Anderson, Wicher, and IBP on the negligence claim, because the Nelsons only allege economic loss and there is no evidence that an exception to the economic loss rule should apply.…”

Sherer v. Pocatello Sch. Dist. 25, 148 P.3d 1232 (Idaho 2006). · cites it 6× “” I.C. § 6-904B. This statute bars the Appellants’ claims to the extent they rely on the school district’s failure to examine the bungee run equipment.”

John Block v. City of Lewiston, 328 P.3d 464 (Idaho 2014). · cites it 14× “2 Lewiston has immunity from these claims under I.C. § 6-904B. *489 Idaho Code section 6-904B provides immunity for actions arising out of the issuance of permits, or the failure to make an inspection.”

Crown v. State, Dep't of Agric., 898 P.2d 1086 (Idaho 1995). · cites it 14× “As grounds, the DOA claimed (1) that the growers’ claims were barred by res judicata due to the bankruptcy court’s order of April 25, 1989; (2) that the 1988 amendment to the Tort Claims Act, I.C. § 6-904B, barred the growers’ claims premised on negligent inspection and…”

Williamson v. Ada Cnty., 509 P.3d 1133 (Idaho 2022). · cites it 12× “Next, the district court determined that Ada County was exempt from liability for Williamson’s claims arising from medical treatment because Idaho Code section 6-904B explicitly exempts government actors from liability over medical decisions provided to a person in custody.”

Halvorson v. North Latah Cnty. High. Dist., 254 P.3d 497 (Idaho 2011). · cites it 4× “§ 6-904 and I.C. § 6-904B, the district court dismissed all claims against the individual defendants.”

Boise Tower Assocs., LLC v. Hogland, 215 P.3d 494 (Idaho 2009). · cites it 2× “” I.C. § 6-904B(3). The burden is particularly high for BTA, as I.”

Rincover v. State, Dep't of Fin., Sec. Bureau, 917 P.2d 1293 (Idaho 1996). · cites it 4× “Second, it determined that the Rin-eovers were precluded by operation of the doctrine of collateral estoppel from re-Iitigat-ing the applicable standard of care set forth in I.C. §§ 6-904B and -904C, and that an independent review of the facts would lead to the conclusion that…”

Cafferty v. State, Dept. of Transp., 160 P.3d 763 (Idaho 2007). · cites it 2× “See I.C. § 6-904B(3). 3 Importantly, the parties do not argue that there is a question of fact; instead they argue as to whether the facts show that DMV’s actions rose to a level of gross negligence so as to open DMV to liability.”

Renzo v. Idaho State Dep't of Agric., 241 P.3d 950 (Idaho 2010). · cites it 2× “Whether the Department is entitled to immunity under I.C. § 6-904B(3). 4. Whether Renzo failed to raise an issue of material fact regarding the claim of intentional interference with a prospective economic advantage.”

S. Griffin Constr., Inc. v. City of Lewiston, 16 P.3d 278 (Idaho 2000). · cites it 2× “Gross negligence, as found in I.C. § 6-904B, “Tort Claims Against Governmental Entities,” was discussed in Crown v.”

Crown v. State, Dep't of Agric., 955 P.2d 612 (Idaho Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “The Court held that as to any losses occurring after that date, the trial court had properly granted summary judgment based on I.C. §§ 6-904B, and 6-904C. Therefore, the Court reversed the summary judgment "only as it relates to loss of bean inventory before July 1, 1988.”

Show all 20 citing cases →

— Idaho Code § 6-904B(3) — 5 cases

Boise Tower Assocs., LLC v. Hogland, 215 P.3d 494 (Idaho 2009). “” I.C. § 6-904B(3). The burden is particularly high for BTA, as I.”

Cafferty v. State, Dept. of Transp., 160 P.3d 763 (Idaho 2007). “See I.C. § 6-904B(3). 3 Importantly, the parties do not argue that there is a question of fact; instead they argue as to whether the facts show that DMV’s actions rose to a level of gross negligence so as to open DMV to liability.”

Renzo v. Idaho State Dep't of Agric., 241 P.3d 950 (Idaho 2010). “Whether the Department is entitled to immunity under I.C. § 6-904B(3). 4. Whether Renzo failed to raise an issue of material fact regarding the claim of intentional interference with a prospective economic advantage.”

Newton v. MJK/BJK MBK Lake; KAKM & Idaho Dept of Lands (Idaho 2020).

Peter Renzo v. State Dept. of Agric. (Idaho 2010).

— Idaho Code § 6-904B(4) — 2 cases

Sherer v. Pocatello Sch. Dist. 25, 148 P.3d 1232 (Idaho 2006). “” I.C. § 6-904B. This statute bars the Appellants’ claims to the extent they rely on the school district’s failure to examine the bungee run equipment.”

Crown v. State, Dep't of Agric., 898 P.2d 1099 (Idaho Ct. App. 1994).

— Idaho Code § 6-904B(5) — 2 cases

Williamson v. Ada Cnty., 509 P.3d 1133 (Idaho 2022). “Next, the district court determined that Ada County was exempt from liability for Williamson’s claims arising from medical treatment because Idaho Code section 6-904B explicitly exempts government actors from liability over medical decisions provided to a person in custody.”

Bray v. ID Dept of Juv. Corr. (Idaho 2025).

— Idaho Code § 6-904B(6) — 1 case

Darrel McCabe v. Olivia Craven (Idaho Ct. App. 2007).

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.