Idaho § 6-1406 RELEVANCE OF INDUSTRY CUSTOM, SAFETY OR PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, AND TECHNOLOGICAL FEASIBILITY

Idaho Statutes

§ 6-1406 — RELEVANCE OF INDUSTRY CUSTOM, SAFETY OR PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, AND TECHNOLOGICAL FEASIBILITY

Idaho § 6-1406

Title 6ACTIONS IN PARTICULAR CASES

Ch. 14PRODUCT LIABILITY

This text of Idaho § 6-1406 (RELEVANCE OF INDUSTRY CUSTOM, SAFETY OR PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, AND TECHNOLOGICAL FEASIBILITY) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Idaho Code § 6-1406 (2026).

Text

(1)Evidence of changes in (a) a product’s design, (b) warnings or instructions concerning the product, (c) technological feasibility, (d) "state of the art," or (e) the custom of the product seller’s industry or business, occurring after the product was manufactured and delivered to its first purchaser or lessee who was not engaged in the business of either selling such products or using them as component parts of another product to be sold, is not admissible for the purpose of proving that the product was defective in design or that a warning or instruction should have accompanied the product at the time of manufacture. The provisions of this section shall not relieve the product seller of any duty to warn of known defects discovered after the product was designed and manufactured.

(2)I

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

(1) Evidence of changes in (a) a product’s design, (b) warnings or instructions concerning the product, (c) technological feasibility, (d) "state of the art," or (e) the custom of the product seller’s industry or business, occurring after the product was manufactured and delivered to its first purchaser or lessee who was not engaged in the business of either selling such products or using them as component parts of another product to be sold, is not admissible for the purpose of proving that the product was defective in design or that a warning or instruction should have accompanied the product at the time of manufacture. The provisions of this section shall not relieve the product seller of any duty to warn of known defects discovered after the product was designed and manufactured.
(2) If the court finds outside the presence of a jury that the probative value of such evidence substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect and that there is no other proof available, this evidence may be admitted for other relevant purposes, including but not limited to proving ownership or control, or impeachment.
(3) For purposes of this section, "custom" refers to the practices followed by an ordinary product seller in the product seller’s industry or business.
(4) For purposes of this section, "technological feasibility" means the technological, mechanical and scientific knowledge relating to product safety that was reasonably feasible for use, in light of economic practicality, at the time of manufacture.