Premises Liability Complaint - Idaho

PREMISES LIABILITY COMPLAINT — IDAHO

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Parties
3. Jurisdiction and Venue
4. Factual Allegations
5. Count I — Negligence
6. Count II — Negligent Maintenance of Premises
7. Count III — Failure to Warn
8. Damages
9. Jury Demand
10. Prayer for Relief
11. Idaho Practice Notes

CAPTION

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE [________________________________] JUDICIAL DISTRICT

OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF [________________________________]

[________________________________],

Plaintiff,

v.

Case No.: [________________________________]

[________________________________],

Defendant(s).

COMPLAINT FOR PREMISES LIABILITY

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, [________________________________] ("Plaintiff"), by and through undersigned counsel, and for this Complaint against Defendant(s), [________________________________] ("Defendant"), states and alleges as follows:

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff [________________________________] is an individual residing at [________________________________], [________________________________] County, Idaho.

2. Defendant [________________________________] is [an individual/a corporation/a limited liability company/a partnership] [organized under the laws of [________________________________]] with [a principal place of business/residence] at [________________________________], Idaho.

3. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant was the [owner/operator/lessee/manager] of the premises located at [________________________________], Idaho (the "Premises").

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action as the Idaho District Courts are courts of general jurisdiction pursuant to Idaho Const. Art. V, § 20.

5. Venue is proper in [________________________________] County pursuant to Idaho Code § 5-404, because [the injury occurred in this county / the Defendant resides in this county / the Defendant conducts business in this county].

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

The Premises and Defendant's Control

6. At all times relevant, Defendant [owned/operated/controlled/maintained] the Premises located at [________________________________], Idaho.

7. The Premises were used as [a retail store/restaurant/office building/apartment complex/parking lot/other: ________________________________].

8. On or about [__/__/____], Plaintiff entered the Premises for the purpose of [________________________________].

The Dangerous Condition

9. At the time of Plaintiff's entry, a dangerous condition existed on the Premises, specifically: [________________________________].

10. The dangerous condition was caused by [________________________________] and had existed for [________________________________] prior to Plaintiff's injury.

Notice to Defendant

11. Defendant had actual notice of the dangerous condition in that [________________________________].

12. In the alternative, Defendant had constructive notice of the dangerous condition because the hazard existed for a sufficient period of time that, in the exercise of ordinary care, Defendant should have discovered and remedied it. See Hanks v. City of Boise, Docket No. 49606 (Idaho Nov. 28, 2023).

13. Despite knowledge or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition, Defendant failed to correct, repair, or warn Plaintiff of the hazard.

The Incident

14. On or about [__/__/____], at approximately [____] [a.m./p.m.], Plaintiff [slipped/tripped/fell/was struck by/other: ________________________________] due to the dangerous condition described above.

15. As a direct and proximate result of the incident, Plaintiff suffered injuries including but not limited to [________________________________].

COUNT I — NEGLIGENCE

16. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations of all preceding paragraphs.

17. Under Idaho's standard of reasonableness, Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty to exercise reasonable care under all the circumstances to maintain the Premises in a reasonably safe condition. See Harrison v. Taylor, 115 Idaho 588, 768 P.2d 1321 (1989).

18. Specifically, Defendant's duty included:

• ☐ Maintaining the Premises in a reasonably safe condition;
• ☐ Conducting reasonable inspections to discover dangerous conditions;
• ☐ Taking reasonable steps to remedy known or discoverable hazards;
• ☐ Warning of dangerous conditions that could not be reasonably eliminated.

19. Defendant breached this duty by [________________________________].

20. Defendant's breach of duty was the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

21. But for Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff would not have been injured.

COUNT II — NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF PREMISES

22. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations of all preceding paragraphs.

23. Defendant had a duty to maintain the Premises in a safe and reasonable condition, including but not limited to:

• ☐ Conducting regular inspections of the Premises;
• ☐ Repairing known hazards in a timely manner;
• ☐ Implementing adequate safety procedures and protocols;
• ☐ Complying with all applicable building codes and safety regulations.

24. Defendant negligently failed to maintain the Premises by [________________________________].

25. Defendant's negligent maintenance was a direct and proximate cause of the dangerous condition that caused Plaintiff's injuries.

COUNT III — FAILURE TO WARN

26. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations of all preceding paragraphs.

27. Defendant knew or should have known of the dangerous condition on the Premises.

28. The dangerous condition was not open and obvious to Plaintiff, or alternatively, even if the condition was apparent, the open and obvious nature does not categorically bar recovery and is a factor in the allocation of fault. See Harrison v. Taylor, 115 Idaho 588, 768 P.2d 1321 (1989).

29. Defendant failed to provide adequate warning of the dangerous condition by failing to:

• ☐ Post warning signs or notices;
• ☐ Erect barriers or safety devices;
• ☐ Verbally warn Plaintiff of the hazard;
• ☐ Take other reasonable steps to alert visitors of the danger.

30. Defendant's failure to warn was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

DAMAGES

31. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer the following damages:

a. Medical Expenses: Past and future medical bills in the amount of $[________________________________];

b. Lost Wages and Earning Capacity: Past and future lost wages and diminished earning capacity in the amount of $[________________________________];

c. Pain and Suffering: Physical pain and suffering, both past and future;

d. Mental Anguish: Emotional distress, anxiety, and mental anguish;

e. Loss of Enjoyment of Life: Diminished quality of life and inability to perform daily activities;

f. Permanent Impairment: Permanent disability and/or disfigurement;

g. Other Damages: [________________________________].

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable pursuant to the Idaho Constitution, Article I, § 7, and Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 38.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in Plaintiff's favor and against Defendant, and award:

a. Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

b. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law;

c. Costs of this action, including court costs and filing fees;

d. Attorney's fees as permitted by Idaho Code § 12-121;

e. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

[________________________________]
Attorney for Plaintiff
Idaho State Bar No.: [________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________]
Telephone: [________________________________]
Email: [________________________________]

Date: [__/__/____]

IDAHO PRACTICE NOTES

Duty of Care Framework

Idaho has moved away from the rigid invitee/licensee/trespasser trichotomy toward an ordinary negligence standard of reasonableness under all circumstances. Under Harrison v. Taylor, 115 Idaho 588, 768 P.2d 1321 (1989), the duty owed is one of reasonable care to all persons on the property. The entrant's status remains a relevant factor but is not determinative.

Modified Comparative Fault (Individual Comparison)

Under Idaho Code § 6-801, recovery against a person is barred if the plaintiff's negligence is "as great as" (equal to or greater than) that person's negligence. Any recovery permitted by that person-by-person comparison is reduced proportionally.

Open and Obvious Doctrine — Not a Categorical Bar

Under Harrison v. Taylor, Idaho has rejected the open and obvious danger doctrine as a categorical bar to recovery. Instead, the open and obvious nature of a hazard is treated as a factor in the allocation of fault under comparative negligence principles.

Government Property Claims

Claims against the State or its employees must be filed with the Secretary of State within 180 days from the date the claim arose or should have been discovered (Idaho Code § 6-905). Failure to provide timely notice bars the claim.

Recreational Use Statute

Idaho Code § 36-1604 limits liability for landowners who allow the public to use their land for recreational purposes. If the injury occurred during recreational use, this statute may apply.

Statute of Limitations

Two (2) years after statutory accrual (Idaho Code § 5-219(4)). Outside the subsection's narrow foreign-object and fraudulent-concealment branches, accrual is the occurrence, act, or omission complained of—not a universal date-of-injury calculation.

This template is provided by ezel.ai for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws change frequently; always verify current statutes and consult with a licensed Idaho attorney before filing.