Idaho State Statutes - Idaho Attorney Directory

(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.

Click here to visit the Official Idaho State Statutes