Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 72-208 (2026)

Injuries not covered — willful intention — Intoxication. 

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

Injuries not covered — willful intention — Intoxication. 

(1) No compensation shall be allowed to an employee for injury proximately caused by the employee’s willful intention to injure himself or to injure another.

(2)  If intoxication is a reasonable and substantial cause of an injury, no income benefits shall be paid, except where the intoxicants causing the employee’s intoxication were furnished by the employer or where the employer permits the employee to remain at work with knowledge by the employer or his supervising agent that the employee is intoxicated.
(3)  "Intoxication" as used in this section means being under the influence of alcohol or of controlled substances, as defined in section 37-2701(e), Idaho Code. Provided, however, that this definition shall not include an employee’s use of a controlled substance for which a prescription has been issued authorizing such substance to be dispensed to the employee, or when such substance is dispensed directly by a physician to the employee, and where the employee’s use of the controlled substance is in accordance with the instructions for use of the controlled substance.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2022 · leading case: Mapusaga v. Red Lion Riverside Inn, 748 P.2d 1372 (Idaho 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mapusaga v. Red Lion Riverside Inn, 748 P.2d 1372 (Idaho 1987). · cites it 39× “" The ISIF argues that since the claimant, Helen Mapusaga, injured her arm while attempting suicide, I.C. § 72-208 precludes compensation for this injury.”
Seamans v. Maaco Auto Painting & Bodyworks, 918 P.2d 1192 (Idaho 1996). · cites it 52× “The Commission concluded that because the evidence was in equipoise, Maaco had not met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence, as required by I.C. § 72-208, that Seamans' fall was proximately caused by his wilful intention to injure himself.”
Newman K. Giles v. Eagle Farms, Inc., 339 P.3d 535 (Idaho 2014). · cites it 30× “The Idaho Industrial Commission conducted the hearing on the sole issue of whether Kal was barred from receiving income benefits by Idaho Code section 72-208, which denies benefits “[i]f intoxication is a reasonable and substantial cause of an injury.”
Kearney v. Denker, 760 P.2d 1171 (Idaho 1988). · cites it 8× “The employee contends that she has been denied equal protection of the laws because I.C. § 72-208 denies compensation to an employee who wilfully intends to injure herself, while I.”
Morgan v. Columbia Helicopters, Inc., 796 P.2d 1020 (Idaho 1990). · cites it 10× “NOTES [1] Morgan has argued that Idaho Code § 72-208 does not permit the Commission to deny a claimant benefits because of the claimant's intoxication, but instead only permits the Commission to reduce the claimant's benefits by fifty percent.”
Yeend v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 659 P.2d 87 (Idaho 1982). · cites it 4× “§ 72-209 "shall not apply in any case where the injury or death is proximately caused by the wilful or unprovoked physical aggression of the employer, its officers, agents, servants or employees, the loss of such exemption applying only to the aggressor and shall not be…”
Reinstein v. McGregor Land & Livestock, Co., 879 P.2d 1089 (Idaho 1994). · cites it 8× “I.C. § 72-208(2) provides as follows: If an injury is the proximate result of an employee's intoxication, all income benefits shall be reduced by fifty per cent (50%), provided that such reduction shall not apply where the intoxicants causing the employee's intoxication were…”
Kennedy v. Forest, 930 P.2d 1026 (Idaho 1997). · cites it 4× “Remaining issues Due to our decision remanding this case to the Commission for a determination of whether an employment relationship existed based on an implied-in-fact contract, we need not reach the issues on appeal regarding the requirement that a compensable accident arise…”
Hatley v. Lewiston Grain Growers, Inc., 552 P.2d 482 (Idaho 1976). · cites it 4× “Relevant to our inquiry in this case is the statutory language of I.C. § 72-208 that, “If an injury is the proximate re *722 suit of an employee’s intoxication, all income benefits shall be reduced by fifty per cent (50%) .”
Nelson v. City of Pocatello, 508 P.3d 1234 (Idaho 2022). · cites it 2× “2d 482, 485 (1976) (citing I.C. § 72-208 (1976) and I.C. § 72-228). The Hatley Court determined the workers’ compensation statutes required the “employer relying on the intoxication defense to come forth with substantial affirmative evidence showing that the employee was…”
Kessler Ex Rel. Kessler v. Payette Cnty., 934 P.2d 28 (Idaho 1997). · cites it 2× “Lenore Kessler argued on appeal that the Commission erred when it sua sponte applied I.C. § 72-208 and found that Kessler wilfully intended to injure Officers Jones and Nauman when Kessler pulled his weapon.”
Heritage Mut. Ins. Co. v. Larsen, 2001 WI 30 (Wis. 2001). · cites it 2× “See also Idaho Code § 72-208 (Michie 2000) (denying income benefits where "intoxication is a reasonable and substantial cause of an injury").”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Idaho Code § 72-208(1) — 2 cases
Mapusaga v. Red Lion Riverside Inn, 748 P.2d 1372 (Idaho 1987). “" The ISIF argues that since the claimant, Helen Mapusaga, injured her arm while attempting suicide, I.C. § 72-208 precludes compensation for this injury.”
Seamans v. Maaco Auto Painting & Bodyworks, 918 P.2d 1192 (Idaho 1996). “The Commission concluded that because the evidence was in equipoise, Maaco had not met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence, as required by I.C. § 72-208, that Seamans' fall was proximately caused by his wilful intention to injure himself.”
— Idaho Code § 72-208(2) — 4 cases
Newman K. Giles v. Eagle Farms, Inc., 339 P.3d 535 (Idaho 2014). “The Idaho Industrial Commission conducted the hearing on the sole issue of whether Kal was barred from receiving income benefits by Idaho Code section 72-208, which denies benefits “[i]f intoxication is a reasonable and substantial cause of an injury.”
Reinstein v. McGregor Land & Livestock, Co., 879 P.2d 1089 (Idaho 1994). “I.C. § 72-208(2) provides as follows: If an injury is the proximate result of an employee's intoxication, all income benefits shall be reduced by fifty per cent (50%), provided that such reduction shall not apply where the intoxicants causing the employee's intoxication were…”
Kennedy v. Forest, 930 P.2d 1026 (Idaho 1997). “Remaining issues Due to our decision remanding this case to the Commission for a determination of whether an employment relationship existed based on an implied-in-fact contract, we need not reach the issues on appeal regarding the requirement that a compensable accident arise…”
Hatley v. Lewiston Grain Growers, Inc., 552 P.2d 482 (Idaho 1976). “Relevant to our inquiry in this case is the statutory language of I.C. § 72-208 that, “If an injury is the proximate re *722 suit of an employee’s intoxication, all income benefits shall be reduced by fifty per cent (50%) .”
— Idaho Code § 72-208(3) — 1 case
Newman K. Giles v. Eagle Farms, Inc., 339 P.3d 535 (Idaho 2014). “The Idaho Industrial Commission conducted the hearing on the sole issue of whether Kal was barred from receiving income benefits by Idaho Code section 72-208, which denies benefits “[i]f intoxication is a reasonable and substantial cause of an injury.”
— Idaho Code § 72-208(a) — 1 case
Seamans v. Maaco Auto Painting & Bodyworks, 918 P.2d 1192 (Idaho 1996). “The Commission concluded that because the evidence was in equipoise, Maaco had not met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence, as required by I.C. § 72-208, that Seamans' fall was proximately caused by his wilful intention to injure himself.”
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.