Idaho uses modified comparative fault with 50% bar. Authority: Idaho Code § 6-801.
The Idaho pattern jury instructions ask jurors to determine: (1) was the defendant negligent? (2) was the plaintiff negligent? (3) was each party\'s negligence a substantial factor in causing the injury? (4) what percentage of fault, totaling 100%, do you assign to each party?
The court applies the modified comparative fault (50% bar) formula to those percentages after the verdict form is returned.
Comparative negligence in Idaho is the single most important doctrine for predicting case value. Lawyers price cases based on liability strength, but the operative variable on the verdict form is the plaintiff's percentage of fault.
Idaho uses modified comparative fault with a 50% bar: a plaintiff can recover only if their fault is LESS than 50%. At exactly 50%, recovery drops to zero. Anything below 50% is reduced proportionally , a 30%-at-fault plaintiff keeps 70% of the verdict.
Pre-trial settlement valuation and trial strategy in Idaho both turn on these numbers. Below: five scenarios at common verdict sizes and fault percentages, with the recovery a Idaho plaintiff would actually receive under the state\'s modified comparative fault (50% bar) rule.
| Verdict | Plaintiff fault | Net recovery | Reduction |
|---|---|---|---|
| $100,000 | 10% | $90,000 | $10,000 |
| $250,000 | 25% | $187,500 | $62,500 |
| $500,000 | 49% | $255,000 | $245,000 |
| $500,000 | 50% | $0 | $500,000 |
| $1,000,000 | 60% | $0 | $1,000,000 |
Practical illustration: an injured driver wins a $200,000 verdict in Idaho and the jury assigns 10% fault to them. Applying Idaho's modified comparative fault (50% bar) rule yields a net recovery of $90,000.
Practical illustration: an injured driver wins a $200,000 verdict in Idaho and the jury assigns 25% fault to them. Applying Idaho's modified comparative fault (50% bar) rule yields a net recovery of $187,500.
Scenario: a slip-and-fall plaintiff is awarded $1,000,000 by a Idaho jury, with 49% of fault attributed to them for not watching where they walked. Under Idaho law (modified comparative fault (50% bar)), the final award is $255,000.
Practical illustration: an injured driver wins a $200,000 verdict in Idaho and the jury assigns 50% fault to them. Applying Idaho's modified comparative fault (50% bar) rule yields a net recovery of $0.
Scenario: a slip-and-fall plaintiff is awarded $1,000,000 by a Idaho jury, with 60% of fault attributed to them for not watching where they walked. Under Idaho law (modified comparative fault (50% bar)), the final award is $0.
Idaho's rule changes how cases settle. In a state with a hard 50% bar, defense lawyers ramp up fault-allocation evidence , police reports, expert reconstruction, dashcam footage , because pushing the plaintiff over the threshold is worth the entire case. In pure-comparative states, both sides negotiate from a smoother slope.
Voir dire and jury instructions in Idaho comparative-fault cases shape outcomes as much as the underlying facts. Plaintiffs' counsel often spends opening arguments framing the plaintiff's actions as reasonable, knowing that even a moderate fault allocation can significantly reduce the verdict.
Idaho comparative-negligence rules only matter if you file on time. The state\'s personal-injury statute of limitations is 2 years from the date of injury (Idaho Code § 5-219). Even an airtight liability case is dismissed with prejudice if the complaint is filed late.
Idaho applies modified comparative fault (50% bar). Idaho uses modified comparative fault with 50% bar.
Idaho bars recovery when the plaintiff is 50% or more at fault.
Idaho jurors are presented with a special verdict form asking them to assign fault percentages totaling 100% to each party (and any non-party at fault under joint-tortfeasor rules). The trial court then applies the comparative-fault formula to compute the final recovery.
Yes. Idaho juries can apportion fault among multiple defendants (and sometimes non-party tortfeasors). The treatment of joint and several liability , whether each defendant is liable only for their share or for the entire judgment if others are insolvent , varies by state statute.
Idaho courts vary on the "seat-belt defense." Some states allow evidence of non-use as a fault factor; others (by statute or judicial rule) exclude it. Plaintiffs\' counsel should consult current Idaho appellate decisions before deciding how to handle the issue at trial.
Generally yes , Idaho\'s comparative-fault rule applies across negligence claims, including medical malpractice. Some states adjust the framework for medmal cases (e.g., reducing the plaintiff-fault relevance because patients rarely contribute to their own injuries in the traditional sense), but the basic rule applies unless the statute carves out an exception.
In modified comparative fault (50% bar) Idaho, the bar threshold becomes the focal point of settlement: defendants negotiate harder near the threshold, plaintiffs accept reduced offers to avoid the bar.
Last verified against primary sources on 2026-05-16.