ON DENIAL OF PETITION FOR REHEARING
DONALDSON, Chief Justice.On April 9, 1975, a traffic accident occurred on the Lightning Creek Bridge on Idaho State Highway 200 near Clark Fork, Idaho. While • plaintiff-respondent Donald Leliefeld was driving east in his employer’s truck, defendant-cross-appellant Johnnie Carnline was driving west in his employer’s dump truck pulling a lowboy trailer loaded *361with a D-6 Caterpillar bulldozer. The minimum width of Carnline’s load was 9'2" and the bulldozer blade extended beyond the right-hand edge of the trailer. At the time of the accident, I.C. § 49-913 provided that no vehicle using the Idaho highways could exceed eight feet in width without a permit from the state. Carnline had no permit.
A collision occurred on the bridge between the truck driven by Leliefeld and the bulldozer on Carnline’s trailer. While the approach roadways were 22' wide, the bridge, which was built in 1937, was 20' wide from curb to curb. On neither the approaches nor the bridge were there warning signs concerning the bridge width. There was conflicting testimony as to which truck first entered the bridge. While crossing the bridge, the bulldozer blade caught on a bridge girder which caused the bulldozer to be displaced into the path of Leliefeld’s oncoming truck. During the ensuing collision, Leliefeld was injured. Some time subsequent to the accident, warning signs were erected at this bridge.
The Leliefelds and his employer Nabisco brought suit against Carnline, and his employer Wendell Johnson, d/b/a Panorama Contractors, Inc., a/k/a Panoramic Construction, and the State of Idaho seeking to recover damages. The State answered and filed a cross-complaint against the other defendants Wendell Johnson, Panorama, and Carnline for damages to the bridge and for indemnity and contribution in the event the State was shown to be liable. In turn Carnline, Johnson, and Panorama filed a responsive pleading which counter-claimed against the Leliefelds and Nabisco for property damage and personal injuries to Carnline and cross-claimed against the State for damages and indemnity. Attorney fees were sought by all parties.
Prior to trial several motions in limine were made. Carnline, Johnson and Panorama moved for an order excluding all evidence that at the time of the accident they did not have a wide load permit. This was denied. The State moved for an order excluding all evidence of subsequent alterations made by the State to the bridge or the state highway which passes over it. This was denied. The State also moved for partial summary judgment on the issues of alleged liability of the State as a result of the plan or design for construction of the Lightning Creek Bridge. This motion was granted.
A jury trial was conducted at which evidence consisting of several exhibits and testimony was introduced by Leliefeld that the signing of the bridge was substandard and that bridge design standards had changed over the years. The State objected to the evidence as to design standards as being contrary to the order granting partial summary judgment which objection was overruled. Evidence was admitted over the State’s objection that the bridge was signed subsequent to the accident. A police accident report was admitted over objection. After a motion at the close of the evidence, the court dismissed defendant Johnson on grounds that there was insufficient evidence to establish any liability on his part, but denied motions to dismiss the other defendants.
The State requested a jury instruction on the State’s discretionary function defense which was refused. However, the court did give, over objection, an instruction that the State may lose its design immunity if conditions change sufficiently to produce a “dangerous condition.” Carnline and Panorama requested a jury instruction which would have excluded jury consideration of the fact that no wide load permit had been obtained. This was denied and the court gave, over objections, instructions that a permit was required by statute for vehicles greater than eight feet in width and that violation of such a statute is negligence “unless compliance .. . was impossible or something over which the party had no control placed him in a position of violation of the statute or an emergency not of the party’s own making caused him to fail to obey the statute.”
A special verdict was returned by the jury in which negligence was attributed as follows: Leliefeld (10%), Carnline (65%) and the State (25%). The jury found damages *362as follows: Donald H. Leliefeld ($400,000), Jewel H. Leliefeld ($20,000), and Nabisco ($13,946.82). Judgment was entered for Donald H. Leliefeld ($360,010.96), Jewel H. Leliefeld ($18,004.45), and Nabisco, Inc. ($12,536.73). Under I.C. § 6-926, the State subsequently moved to amend the judgment against the State to $100,000 plus costs. This motion was granted. The State’s motion for judgment n.o.v. or a new trial and Carnline’s and Panorama’s motion for a new trial were denied. ■ The State appeals and all other parties cross-appeal.
I.
The first issue presented is whether the placing or nonplacing of signs at the bridge was a discretionary function within the meaning of the Idaho Tort Claims Act [ITCA]. If it was, then the State is immunized from liability. I.C. § 6-904(1) provided at times relevant to this controversy1 that:
“EXCEPTIONS TO GOVERNMENTAL LIABILITY. — A governmental entity shall not be liable for any claim which: 1. Arises out of any act or omission of an employee of the governmental entity exercising due care, in the execution of a statute or regulation, whether or not the statute or regulation be valid, or based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a governmental entity or employee thereof, whether or not the discretion be abused.” 1974 Idaho Sess.Laws ch. 167, p. 1423.
We have considered this exemption from liability in three other cases—McClure v. Nampa Highway District, 102 Idaho 197, 628 P.2d 228 (1981), Gavica v. Hanson, 101 Idaho 58, 608 P.2d 861 (1980), and Dunbar v. United Steelworkers of America, 100 Idaho 523, 602 P.2d 21 (1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 983, 100 S.Ct. 2963, 64 L.Ed.2d 839 (1980). In McClure and Gavica, we considered the application of the discretionary function exception with regard to actions which alleged negligence on the part of a governmental entity in maintaining or failing to warn of a known dangerous condition in or on a public highway. McClure and Gavica make it clear that the State is not immunized from liability when with respect to a public highway, the State maintains a known dangerous condition on the highway and fails to properly warn motorists of such a condition.
The State responds to McClure and Gavica by asserting that bridges are signed according to statewide standards promulgated by the Idaho Transportation Department. According to the State, the formulation of criteria governing the signing of bridges occurs at the state level and has no parallel in the private sector. The State directs our attention to plaintiffs’ exhibit 58, a document delineating certain signs to be placed on various types of bridges. This document was formulated after four to five years of study by the state traffic engineer’s office. The State argues that this is evidence that the decision to sign or not sign bridges is made at the state level for all of the bridges in this state and therefore has no parallel in the private sector. This would be cogent to our deliberations, if the theory upon which this case was tried was that these statewide signing and striping standards were inadequate, negligently promulgated or a cause of the accident. In such a case, the discretionary immunity accorded the State by I.C. § 6-904(1) would apply. However, this case was tried upon a different theory that this particular bridge *363was dangerous at the time of the accident, that the State knew that it was a dangerous condition, and yet failed to correct the dangerous condition, either by reconstructing the bridge or by warning of its characteristics. We are not persuaded that McClure and Gavica were wrongly decided or should not be applied. The declaration and existence of statewide standards are not talismanic and do not provide immunity from liability for breach of a duty to make safe or warn of known dangerous conditions on public highways.
The State argues that in Dunbar the discretionary immunity afforded by § 6-904(1) was available because the state mine inspector was applying statewide mine safety standards and there was no similar duty imposed in the private sector. Here, the State argues that the responsible state highway engineer simply was implementing statewide standards for the construction and signing of bridges. There are several flaws in this argument. Here, unlike Dunbar, the standards apply only to the State’s own highway system; there is no attempt to regulate the conduct of third parties. Second, the individual highway districts within the state can and do go beyond statewide standards when necessary to compensate for dangers unique to a particular portion of the state highway system. While the creation of a governing policy might well be discretionary, nonetheless, a negligent failure in the furtherance of that policy could well be tortious and outside the screen of immunity. Third, the State itself admits that the document which it relies on as proof that the signing of the bridge was a policy matter was not completed until after the accident. In part because it would be anomalous to permit the State to create immunity for itself simply by promulgating a statewide directive after an accident, we decline to bring the State under the aegis of I.C. § 6-904(1).
Finally, the State argues that the Dunbar test should be limited on its facts to the first clause of § 6-904(1) which concerns a statutory or regulatory function. The mine inspector in Dunbar was performing a “regulatory function” and was thus immunized. The State argues that if the Dunbar test were applied to the second clause of § 6-904(1) which relates to a “discretionary function or duty,” then the statute contains two clauses which provide the same thing and one would be “mere surplusage.” The State would draw from its reading of the statute and Dunbar the conclusions that the “discretionary function” clause provides a broader scope of immunity than the “regulatory function” clause and that the parallel functions test should apply only to the first clause. While we agree with the State that the two clauses represent two separate types of actions which may be immune from liability, we see no reason for applying different tests. In Dunbar, we stated that “our legislature has intended that wherein tort liability would attach to a private person, a governmental entity engaging in the same conduct will be liable.” Dunbar, supra at 546, 602 P.2d at 44. We do not construe either clause as “mere surplusage.” While fewer parallels may exist where a regulatory action is taken than when a discretionary action is taken, the test remains the same. See McClure, supra; Gavica, supra. I.C. § 6-904(1) does not immunize the State from liability for failing to properly sign the Lightning Creek Bridge under the theory of the suit.
II.
The State next argues that it was error for the court to admit evidence of its signing of the bridge which occurred approximately one year after the accident.2 The State’s motion in limine to exclude any evidence concerning these signs was denied. As a result, during trial reference to the signs was made during plaintiffs’ counsel’s opening and closing arguments and a replica of the signs was introduced into evidence. There was also testimony that these signs were placed on the approaches to the bridge subsequent to the accident. A State *364request for a jury instruction forbidding the jury from drawing an inference of negligence from the-subsequent signing was refused.
Idaho adheres to the general rule that evidence of post-accident repairs or alterations to show antecedent negligence is inadmissible. E.g., Alsup v. Saratoga Hotel, Inc., 71 Idaho 229, 236-37, 229 P.2d 985, 990 (1951); see also Mann v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 95 Idaho 732, 739, 518 P.2d 1194, 1201 (1974); G. Bell, Handbook of Evidence for the Idaho Lawyer 79-80 (2d ed. 1972); E. Cleary, McCormick’s Handbook of the Law of Evidence § 275 (2d ed. 1972); G. Lilly, An Introduction to the Law of Evidence § 48 (1978); 2 Wigmore, Evidence § 283 (Chadbourn rev. 1979); Annot., 64 A.L.R.2d 1296 (1959). While in most cases the courts which follow this rule have not expressed the foundation for the rule,3 we have previously stated that such evidence is excluded as immaterial. See, e.g., Alsup v. Saratoga Hotel, Inc., supra; Giffen v. City of Lewiston, 6 Idaho 231, 55 P. 545 (1898).
In denying the State’s motion in limine, the trial court relied upon Otts v. Brough, 90 Idaho 124, 409 P.2d 95 (1965) and Zenier v. Spokane International Railroad Co., 78 Idaho 196, 300 P.2d 494 (1956). In Otts, this Court considered an appeal from a grant of summary judgment. Plaintiff Otts had fallen through an opening in a floor at a construction site and later that opening was barricaded. The Otts Court expressed that
“[w]hile such evidence [of barricading] could not be introduced for the purpose of showing antecedent negligence on the part of respondent Brough, as the one in charge of the area for the purpose of the work there carried on, nevertheless it was material as bearing upon respondent’s recognition of a defect which he was duty bound to remedy.” Otts, supra at 135, 409 P.2d at 101.
This proposition was supported by citation to Zenier v. Spokane International Railroad Co., supra. In Zenier, suit was brought to recover damages for the loss of two horses. The Zenier Court considered the admissibility of evidence that a fence was built after the loss occurred and stated that “such evidence was material, not for the purpose of showing antecedent negligence on appellant’s part, but as evidence of appellant’s recognition of a defect which it was bound to remedy .... ” Id. at 203, 300 P.2d at 498-99 (citations omitted). These cases do not persuade us that the evidence of post-accident signing of the Lightning Creek Bridge was permissible. Further, Zenier involved a statute which created strict liability for failure to guard against a defect. The evidence of the erection of the fence was material to whether a defect existed and there was no issue as to negligence involved. Otts and Zenier address exceptions to the general rule of inadmissibility and are not apposite here.
The rule was originally devised by courts which felt that such evidence was irrelevant to antecedent negligence. One of the first cases to address the issue was Hart v. Lancashire & Yorkshire Ry. Co., 21 L.T.R.(n.s.) 261 (1869) (Bramwell, B.). There it was stated:
“People do not furnish evidence against themselves simply by adopting a new plan in order to prevent the recurrence of an accident. I think that a proposition to the contrary would be barbarous. It would be (as I have often had occasion to tell juries) to hold that, because the world gets wiser as it gets older, therefore it was foolish before.” Hart v. Lancashire & Yorkshire Ry. Co., 21 L.T.R.(n.s.) 261, 263 (1869), quoted in 2 Wigmore, Evidence § 283, at 184 (Chadbourn rev. 1979).
In analyzing the relevancy ground for exclusion, it is helpful to consider factors which mitigate the argument that under a liberal scheme of relevancy such evidence is admissible. Such a factor is the equal probability of an inference contrary to negligence being drawn from a subsequent remedial measure viz. a particularly prudent, circumspect and fastidious individual doing *365something which the law would not dictate needed to be done.4 See Adv.Comm. Note to Fed.R.Evid. 407 (“[subsequent remedial measure] is not in fact an admission, since the conduct is equally consistent with injury by mere accident or through contributory negligence”); G. Lilly, An Introduction to the Law of Evidence § 48, at 150-51 (1978) (“An after-the-incident precautionary measure may reflect merely the exercise of extraordinary caution ... and may not indicate the actor’s belief that the condition in question was really hazardous”). It would be unfair to penalize such an individual by permitting his conduct to be introduced as evidence of his negligence because it is clear that his act could be that done by a super-cautious man and not that required of a reasonable man. As Professor Lilly has written:
“In negligence cases, liability attaches if the defendant acted unreasonably in view of the facts known (or which should have been known) to him before the incident in question. An after-incident remedial measure is usually taken on the basis of the additional facts revealed by the accident or injury. There is a risk that the trier, particularly a jury, might not keep this important distinction clearly in mind and might too easily infer prior knowledge from the subsequent remedial acts, which were generated by the knowledge learned from the incident itself.” Id. at 152. See also 2 Wigmore, Evidence § 283, at 174-75 (Chadbourn rev. 1979).
In Wigmore, it is stated:
“If ... bridges ... never caused corporal injury except through the negligence of their owner, then his act of improving their condition, after the happening of an injury thereat, would indicate a belief on his part that the injury was caused by his negligence. But the assumption is plainly false; injuries may be, and constantly are, caused by reason of inevitable accident, and also by reason of contributory negligence of the injured person. To improve the condition of the injury-causing object is therefore to indicate a belief merely that it has been capable of causing such an injury, but indicates nothing more, and is equally consistent with a belief in injury by mere accident, or by contributory negligence, as well as by the owner’s negligence. Mere capacity of a place or thing to cause injury is not the fact that constitutes a liability for the owner; it must be a capacity which could have been known to an owner using reasonable diligence and foresight, and a capacity to injure persons taking reasonable care in its use.
“On this ground, then, namely, that the supposed inference from the act is not the plain and most probable one, such acts of repair or improvement should be excluded.
*366“... [I]n the present instance an argument of policy has always been invoked to strengthen the case for exclusion. That argument is that the admission of such acts, even though theoretically not plainly improper, would be liable to overemphasis by the jury, and that it would discourage all owners, even those who had genuinely been careful, from improving the place or thing that had caused the injury, because they would fear the evidential use of such acts to their disadvantage; and thus not only would careful owners refrain from improvements, but even careless ones, who might have deserved to have the evidence adduced against them, would by refraining from improvements subject innocent persons to the risk of the recurrence of the injury.
“Whatever then might be the strength of the objection to such evidence from'the point of view of relevancy alone, the added considerations of policy suffice to make clear the impropriety of resorting to it.” Id. (Emphasis in the .original.)
There are at least four other instances where otherwise relevant evidence may be rendered inadmissible — where the probative value is overshadowed by (1) the danger that it may unduly arouse the jury’s emotions, (2) the likelihood that it may distract the jury from the main issues, (3) the inordinate consumption of time during its presentation, and (4) the danger of unfair surprise. E. Cleary, McCormick’s Handbook of the Law of Evidence § 185, at 439-40 (2d ed. 1972).
At the turn of the century, an alternative ground for exclusion, which the State now advances, began to supplant the lack of relevancy as a basis for exclusion. This alternative is the social policy to encourage people to take action after an incident to further safety without the fear that such action could later be used to show their negligence. See, e.g., City of Niceville v. Hardy, 160 So.2d 535 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1964); City of Newport v. Maytum, 342 S.W.2d 703 (Ky.1961); Lea v. Baumann Surgical Supplies, Inc., 321 So.2d 844 (La.App.1975), cert. denied, 325 So.2d 279 (La.1976); Hull v. Enger Construction Co., 15 Wash.App. 511, 550 P.2d 692, 697 (1976); see generally E. Cleary, McCormick’s Handbook of the Law of Evidence § 275 (2d ed. 1972); G. Lilly, An Introduction to the Law of Evidence § 48 (1978); 2 Wigmore, Evidence § 283 (Chadbourn rev. 1979); Annot., 64 A.L.R.2d 1296 (1959). While we have never expressly embraced this rationale, neither have we rejected it. We continue to perceive a real or potential benefit as flowing from the rule which excludes evidence of subsequent remedial measures with respect to the issue of antecedent negligence.
From our review of the record and the law, we conclude that the admission of this evidence of post-accident signing of the Lightning Creek Bridge constitutes reversible error.
III.
The next issue presented is whether the court erred in admitting evidence of bridge construction standards promulgated after Lightning Creek Bridge was constructed. It is uncontested that the bridge was constructed in conformance with the standards applicable in 1937. The trial court granted the State’s motion for partial summary judgment and excluded “the plan or design for construction of the Lightning Creek Bridge” as an issue in the case. This ruling was based on I.C. § 6-904(8).
The State argues that the admission of evidence of post-construction standards and the giving of the following quoted instruction are contrary to I.C. § 6-904(8) and constitute reversible error. We agree.
During the trial, the plaintiffs were allowed, over the State’s objection, to introduce evidence of subsequently promulgated bridge design standards and evidence that the Lightning Creek Bridge did not conform to these standards. Plaintiffs presented expert testimony that the bridge was substandard when compared to these later promulgated design standards and that it deviated from these standards in that it was narrower than the width that *367these standards dictated. It was argued that this evidence was used for the purpose of proving that the State knew, or should have known that the bridge was potentially hazardous in light of other evidence which indicated that there had been a substantial increase in the amount, speed and type of traffic using the bridge since it was first constructed; that there had been several other accidents and frequent collision damage to this particular bridge; that the State was aware of these accidents and the frequency of collisions; and that the bridge had been placed on priority “A” for replacement due in part to “vertical clearance restriction and width.” In short, the plaintiffs’ theory below was that the change in traffic conditions on the bridge since 1937 made what may once have been a safe bridge unsafe and that the State was put on notice of the hazardous nature of the bridge by (1) its knowledge of changing standards for such bridges, (2) its knowledge of changes in traffic flow conditions, and (3) its knowledge of accidents at and frequent collisions with the bridge. After the parties presented their cases, the court instructed the jury that:
“[T]he immunity from liability on the part of a public entity, which was heretofore read to you, is not necessarily permanent or perpetual. The immunity granted by that law may disappear if and when conditions have changed. Where a plan or design, properly approved and prepared in conformity with standards in effect at the time of construction, in its actual operation under changed physical conditions produces a dangerous condition of which the public entity has notice, and proximately causes injury, the public entity does not retain such immunity.
“Once the public entity has notice that the plan or design, under changed physical conditions, has produced a dangerous condition of public property, it must act with ordinary care to protect against the danger. Such notice may be actual or constructive, and must be a sufficient time prior to the injury to have permitted the public entity to take measures to protect against the danger.”
Under I.C. § 6-904(8), infra note 7, the question becomes whether § 6-904(8) was intended by the legislature to perpetually immunize the State from liability arising out of plans or designs for, among other things, bridges. This case presents the first occasion for judicial construction of I.C. § 6-904(8).
In construing a statute, this Court attempts to discern and implement the intent of the legislature. In performing this function, courts variously seek edification from the statute’s legislative history, examine the statute’s evolution through a number of amendments, and perhaps seek enlightenment in the decisions of sister courts which have resolved the same or similar issues. See, e.g., Odenwalt v. Zaring, 102 Idaho 1, 5, 624 P.2d 383, 387 (1980); Nixon v. Triber, 100 Idaho 198, 595 P.2d 1093 (1979). Another method, we have employed is to examine the purposes of the act and its structure as a whole in an attempt to discern the legislative intent behind the statute. See Janss Corporation v. Board of Equalization of Blaine County, 93 Idaho 928, 478 P.2d 878 (1970); Jackson v. Jackson, 87 Idaho 330, 393 P.2d 28 (1964).
In part, because a legislative history of this provision is nonexistent and the evolution of the statute is unrevealing, we will consider decisions rendered by courts of other jurisdictions which have encountered similar questions.
Design immunity statutes are relatively rare among the various state tort claims acts. Thus, most of the cases focus instead on state liability for design defects under the discretionary immunity statute. See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 636 P.2d 47 (Alaska 1981). .Idaho became one of the few states with a design immunity statute when the legislature in 1971 enacted what is currently I.C. § 6-904(8).
California in 1963 appears to have been the first state to enact a design immunity statute (current version Cal. Gov’t. Code § 830.6 (West 1980)) based upon the stan*368dards as of the time of construction.5 In first construing § 830.6, the California Supreme Court held that passage of time and change of conditions did not diminish the immunity granted by the statute. Becker v. Johnston, 67 Cal.2d 163, 60 Cal.Rptr. 485, 430 P.2d 43 (1967), Cabell v. State, 67 Cal.2d 150, 60 Cal.Rptr. 476, 430 P.2d 34 (1967). In Cabell a glass door had been originally designed in accordance with the then contemporary standards. A student injured by the door was not permitted to sue the State for defective design even though other students had been previously injured on the same door and even though the then current design standards called for a different type of glass. In Becker a highway intersection was designed in 1927 and completed in 1929. A motorist injured in a 1963 accident was held to have no cause of action against the State even though under changing conditions the intersection was not designed in accordance with engineering standards of the 1960’s, and even though the intersection had been the scene of numerous accidents. In neither Cabell nor Becker did the plaintiff present as a theory of liability a failure of a duty to warn.
In 1965, Illinois became the next state to adopt some sort of specific design immunity when it enacted Chapter 85, § 3-103. This section expressly provides that the immunity shall not continue if the condition turns out to be unsafe.6
On March 20, 1971, our legislature enacted the next design immunity statute. 1971 Idaho Sess. Laws, ch. 150, § 4(7), p. 743, 746 (current version at I.C. § 6-904(8)).7 At that time it had available for its consideration the California and Illinois statutes. From the striking similarity of language between the Idaho and California statutes, compare I.C. § 6-904(8) with Cal. Gov’t.Code § 830.6, we conclude that our legislature chose to enact a version more like the California statute. By 1971, the California Supreme Court had already construed its statute to provide for perpetual *369immunity. Cabell v. State, supra; Becker v. Johnston, supra. Later in Baldwin v. State, 6 Cal.3d 424, 99 Cal.Rptr. 145, 491 P.2d 1121 (1972), the California Supreme Court reversed its holding and held that changed conditions will dissolve the design immunity. Because the Baldwin decision which overruled Cabell and Becker came almost a year after our legislature acted, we choose to construe our statute as the California statute was construed at the time our legislature acted. Therefore, we hold that the legislature intended perpetual design immunity.
The construction we place upon § 6-904(8) does not preclude a finding of liability founded upon a failure to warn of a dangerous condition. McClure, supra; Gavica, supra.
Any evidence of what subsequent design standards called for in mandating bridge widths is at odds with the clear language of I.C. § 6-904(8) and cannot be properly admitted. In view of our holding that § 6-904(8) provides for perpetual immunity, the instruction given was error.
IV.
Respondents cross-appellants Johnnie Carnline and Panoramic Contractors, Inc. argue that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the investigating officer’s report of the accident. Relevant to this issue is I.C. § 49-1511, which provides:
“Neither the report required by section 49-1504, Idaho Code, the action taken by the director pursuant to this act, the findings, if any, of the director upon which such action is based, nor the security filed as provided in this act shall be referred to in any way, nor be any evidence of the negligence or due care of either party, at the trial of any action at law to recover damages.”8
The trial court, in admitting the officer’s report, relied in part on Bell v. O’Connor Transport Limited, 94 Idaho 406, 489 P.2d 439 (1971). In Bell without addressing I.C. § 49-1511, this Court held that such reports were admissible as “official reports” under I.C. § 9-316. Here, none of the parties directed the trial court’s attention to I.C. § 49-1511. Subsequent to the trial in the instant case, we overruled Bell. Owen v. Burcham, 100 Idaho 441, 599 P.2d 1012 (1979). “[T]he intent of our legislature in the enactment of I.C. § 49-1511 was to restrict the utilization of reports of investigating officers following motor vehicle accidents.” Id. at 444, 599 P.2d at 1015. We noted several reasons for excluding such reports — that they may contain extensive hearsay, conclusions and speculations of the officer, criminal charges made, and other materials otherwise inadmissible. Id. at 445, 599 P.2d at 1016.
While the trial court did not have the benefit of Owen, if it had been presented with a proper objection based upon. I.C. § 49-1511, the trial court would have erred by admitting the officer’s report into evidence. In the particular setting of this case, the admission of the report was not reversible error as to the appellants Carnline and Panoramic. The appellants have the burden of demonstrating that prejudicial error occurred, see Obray v. Mitchell, 98 Idaho 533, 567 P.2d 1284 (1977); I.R.C.P. 61, and that burden has not been met. Officer Bruce testified prior to the admission of the report and his testimony covered virtually every aspect of the report. No objection *370was made to Officer Bruce’s personal testimony which contained several references to the report. The report was largely duplicative of admissible and admitted evidence. If error, it was harmless error. However, because the case must be retried as to liability, our holding in Owen v. Burcham, supra, could have application.
V.
We turn next to the contention of Carnline and Panoramic that the trial court erred in admitting evidence that Carnline had not obtained a wide load permit from the state pursuant to I.C. § 49-913 prior to transporting the bulldozer involved in the accident.9 Carnline and Panoramic admit that no permit for this load was obtained and that the load width was such as to require a permit under the statute.10 The general rule in Idaho is that the' violation of an applicable statutory prohibition constitutes negligence per se. Kinney v. Smith, 95 Idaho 328, 508 P.2d 1234 (1973); Riley v. Larson, 91 Idaho 831, 432 P.2d 775 (1967). Even though violation of a statute enacted for public safety is negligence per se, the violation must also be a proximate cause of the injury complained of in order to constitute actionable negligence. E.g., Caldwell v. Tremper, 90 Ariz. 241, 367 P.2d 266 (1962); Sielsky v. Johnson, 506 P.2d 381 (Colo.App.1973); Plains Transport of Kansas, Inc. v. King, 224 Kan. 17, 578 P.2d 1095 (1978); Noland v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 207 Kan. 72, 483 P.2d 1029 (1971); see, e.g., Kinney v. Smith, supra. They maintain that the absence of a permit could not have been a proximate cause of the accident. We disagree.
“Proximate cause is generally an issue for the jury unless the proof is so clear that reasonable minds cannot draw different conclusions or where all reasonable minds would construe the facts and circumstances one way.” Schaefer v. Elswood Trailer Sales, 95 Idaho 654, 656, 516 P.2d 1168, 1170 (1973). Recognizing this rule, Carnline and Johnson correctly cast their argument in terms of sufficiency of the evidence; they argue that plaintiffs’ offered no evidence *371that failure to obtain a permit was a proximate cause of the accident. They suggest that evidence showing that a permit would have required the bulldozer to be moved at a different time, or along a different route, or under different conditions, would have established a causal link between the lack of a permit and the accident, but that in the absence of such evidence that it is impossible to find such a link. They claim therefore that admission of evidence of the violation of the statute was irrelevant and error. We disagree.
Plaintiffs submitted evidence that wide loads such as Carnline’s are commonly flagged, that a permit would probably have required flagging, but that no flagging was present on the bulldozer at the time of the accident.11 While the question of flagging was contested by Carnline and Panoramic, plaintiffs’ evidence was sufficient to submit the question of a permit requirement and noncompliance therewith to the jury, and to allow the jury to draw the inference that the accident might not have happened if a permit had been obtained. Plaintiffs’ evidence shows that (1) they were within the class of persons that the statute was designed to protect, (2) Carnline and Panoramic were within the class of people upon whom the statute imposed its duty, and (3) the harm suffered was the type which the statute was designed to prevent. See Kinney v. Smith, supra. Plaintiffs also pleaded and introduced substantial evidence of negligence, including causality, separate and apart from violation of the statute.
Evidence of the statutory violation was cumulative on the negligence issue. The jury was properly instructed on proximate cause and was fully aware that proof of causality is a prerequisite to recovery. We find no reversible error in the admittance of evidence that no permit was obtained.
VI.
The State, and Carnline and Panoramic, each advance additional arguments that the evidence clearly shows that the sole cause of the accident was the negligence of a party or parties other than itself. The resolution of questions of negligence and proximate cause made by the trier of fact, if supported by substantial and competent evidence, will not be set aside on appeal. Mann v. Gonzales, 100 Idaho 769, 770, 605 P.2d 947, 948 (1980). We have carefully reviewed the record and are convinced that the jury could properly draw the conclusions which it did from the evidence presented.
Carnline and Panoramic next argue that the trial court’s admission into evidence of Leliefeld’s prosthetic leg and photographs of his injuries was error. They argue that this evidence was intended solely to inflame the passions of the jury and had no probative value. The admission of prosthetic devices and photographs of injuries is in the first instance a matter for the discretion of the trial judge. See 29 Am.Jur.2d Evidence § 772 (1967); Annot., 83 A.L.R.2d 1271, 1272 (1962).
“The exhibition of an injury to a jury is within the discretion of the Trial Court, —a party may demonstrate the nature and extent of the injury, or the disability resulting therefrom, and it is common *372and correct practice to exhibit the wound or injury to the jury, even where there is no dispute as to the fact and nature of the injury.. .. Permitting the plaintiff to exhibit the stump of his amputated leg is within the sound discretion of the Court, even where the injury is fully described otherwise, and only if there be an abuse of such discretion manifestly prejudicing the defendant would such be reversible error.... The possibility that the demonstration may be unpleasant or gruesome is not determinative, but should be considered and weighed against the possible usefulness to the jury.” Darling v. Charleston Community Memorial Hospital, 50 Ill.App.2d 253, 200 N.E.2d 149, 185 (1964) (citations omitted), aff’d, 33 Ill.2d 326, 211 N.E.2d 253 (1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 946, 86 S.Ct. 1204, 16 L.Ed.2d 209 (1966).
It is evident from the record that the trial court felt that the prosthesis and the photographs were relevant to the claims of plaintiffs and would aid the jury in understanding the nature, extent, and enduring consequences of the injuries suffered. We find no abuse of discretion in admitting this evidence.
Carnline and Panoramic also argue that references to a dollar value of the general damages claimed by Leliefeld during his counsel’s closing argument were contrary to I.C. § 10-11112 and constitute error. No objections were made at the time that these references occurred; therefore, the objections even if valid were waived by not being advanced. Koch v. Elkins, 71 Idaho 50, 225 P.2d 457 (1950); Hall v. Boise Payette Lumber Co., 63 Idaho 686, 125 P.2d 311 (1942).
VII.
Donald Leliefeld argues that the trial court erred in reducing the amount of damages for which the State was liable to him from $360,010.96 to $100,000. Leliefeld argues that the statute under which the court acted, I.C. § 6-926, violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution13 and article I, section 2 of the Idaho Constitution14 by discriminating against a class of severely injured tort victims. An amicus curiae brief submitted by the Idaho Trial Lawyers Association also addresses the constitutionality of I.C. § 6-926.
I.C. § 6-926 was enacted in 1971 as part of the Idaho Tort Claims Act, 1971 Idaho Sess. Laws ch. 150, p. 743. At that time it provided in part:
“If any judgment or claim against a governmental entity under this act exceeds the one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) per person limited to three hundred thousand ($300,000) in any one (1) accident where two (2) or more persons have claims or judgments on account of personal injury or death, the court *373shall reduce the amount to the minimum requirement unless the governmental entity has secured insurance coverage in excess of the minimum requirement. In this event the court shall reduce the amount of the claim or judgment to a sum equal to the applicable limits provided in the insurance policy.”
Subsequently the section was amended in 1976 and repealed and replaced by a new provision in 1978.15
When the constitutionality of a statute is challenged on grounds that it denies equal protection, the first question to address is what standard of review is to be applied. Three standards of equal protection analysis have been recognizedin Idaho: strict scrutiny, means-focus, and rational basis. Jones v. State Board of Medicine, 97 Idaho 859, 555 P.2d 399 (1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 914, 97 S.Ct. 2173, 53 L.Ed.2d 223 (1977). If the classification involves either a fundamental right or a suspect class, then it is subjected to “strict scrutiny” — to justify the classification the state bears the heavy burden to demonstrate a “compelling state interest.” Here, “strict scrutiny” is inapplicable as the alleged discrimination neither affects a fundamental right nor creates a suspect class. The next standard, “means-focus” examines the means specified in the legislation and searches for a “fair and substantial relation” between the means selected and the articulated and otherwise legitimate purpose of the legislation. This is less stringent than “strict scrutiny,” but more stringent than the traditional “rational basis” test under which “a state statute is to be upheld against equal protection attack if it is rationally related to the achievement of legitimate governmental ends.” G.D. Searle & Co. v. Cohn, 455 U.S. 404, 408, 102 S.Ct. 1137, 1141, 71 L.Ed.2d 250 (1982); Schweiker v. Wilson, 450 U.S. 221, 230, 101 S.Ct. 1074, 1080, 67 L.Ed.2d 186 (1981). A party who assails the constitutionality of a statute bears the burden of showing its invalidity and must overcome a strong presumption of validity. E.g., Standlee v. State, 96 Idaho 849, 538 P.2d 778 (1975); Western Beverage, Inc. v. State, 96 Idaho 588, 532 P.2d 930 (1974). The invalidity must be clearly shown. Stucki v. Loveland, 94 Idaho 621, 495 P.2d 571 (1972).
In choosing between the “means-focus” and “rational basis” tests, we find continuing merit in the following language from Jones:
“In the usual and ordinary case where a statutory classification is to be tested in the context of equal protection, judicial policy has been, and continues to be, that the legislation should be upheld so long as its actions can reasonably be said to promote the health, safety and welfare of the public. Nevertheless, where the discriminatory character of a challenged statutory classification is apparent on its face and where there is also a patent indication of a lack of relationship between the classification and the declared purpose of the statute, then a more stringent judicial inquiry [means-focus] is required beyond that mandated by McGowan [rational basis].” Jones, supra 97 at 871, 555 P.2d at 411.
*374While it is urged by Leliefeld and the amicus that the appropriate standard to be applied here is the “means-focus” standard which was first explicated in Idaho, by our decision in Jones v. State Board of Medicine, supra, we are unconvinced.
The opinion in Jones explains that the “means-focus” standard is to be applied when a two-part trigger has been satisfied. The statute must be discriminatory on its facé and there must be “a patent indication of a lack of relationship between the classification and the declared purpose of the statute.... ” Id. at 871, 555 P.2d at 411. The State has articulated that the purpose of the recovery limitation is the protection of the public treasury which purpose was recognized by the trial court. It is argued that the limitations are an integral and central part of the comprehensive risk management program devised by the State to avoid excess liability and thereby preserve the public treasury. The enactment of the limitation provision is an attempt to balance the competing interests of a tort plaintiff to recover fully against the public interest in maintaining fiscal integrity. Without deciding the discriminatory effect of the recovery limitation, we hold that there exists a valid relationship between the limitation and the avowed purpose of the statute which is to protect the public coffers. Therefore, we decline to apply the “means-focus” standard and will utilize the “rational basis” test in our equal protection analysis. See, e.g., Twin Falls Clinic & Hospital Building Corporation v. Hamill, 103 Idaho 19, 644 P.2d 341 (1982); Heese v. A & T Trucking, 102 Idaho 598, 635 P.2d 962 (1981); LePelley v. Grefenson, 101 Idaho 422, 614 P.2d 962 (1980).
Under the “rational basis” test which is generally appropriate to use when reviewing statutes which impact social or economic areas,16 the question becomes whether the classification “advances legitimate legislative goals in a rational fashion.” Schweiker v. Wilson, 450 U.S. 221, 234, 101 S.Ct. 1074, 1082, 67 L.Ed.2d 186 (1981); Idaho Department of Employment v. Smith, 434 U.S. 100, 98 S.Ct. 327, 54 L.Ed.2d 324 (1977); Twin Falls Clinic & Hospital Building Corporation v. Hamill, supra. Although sparse the legislative history indicates that the legislature was aware that they were establishing a classification and did so deliberately and not as a result of accident or ignorance. We deem it logical to infer from the legislative intent to enact the recovery limitation and the State’s purported objective to protect the public coffers which the plaintiffs concede is a reasonably conceived objective that the recovery limitation has a rational basis. We conclude that the recovery limitations of I.C. § 6-926 are not unconstitutional.
Leliefeld additionally argues that the passage of the Idaho Tort Claims Act affected an existing right. We disagree. Prior to our decision in Smith v. State, 93 Idaho 795, 473 P.2d 937 (1970), sovereign immunity was the rule as part of the common law. Smith announced that its holding which abrogated sovereign immunity would “govern all future causes of action arising on or after 60 days subsequent to the adjournment of the First Regular Session of the Forty-First Idaho State Legislature unless legislation is enacted at that session with respect to the abolition of the sovereign immunity of the state.” Id. at 808, 473 P.2d at 950. The legislature responded to Smith with the passage of the comprehensive Idaho Tort Claims Act in 1971 and therefore the ITCA and not the prior judicial decision abrogated the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Haeg v. City of Pocatello, 98 Idaho 315, 563 P.2d 39 (1977); Newlan v. State, 96 Idaho 711, 535 P.2d 1348 (1975). Prior to the abrogation of the sovereign *375immunity doctrine, generally no right of recovery existed. The right to recover from the State is statutory and is analogous to the statutory cause of action which we reviewed in Stucki v. Loveland, 94 Idaho 621, 495 P.2d 571 (1972) (recovery limitation on survival actions constitutional under equal protection analysis). The ITCA provided a right of recovery and did not affect an existing right.
So long as the statute is constitutional, we have no intrinsic ability to review its inherent wisdom or, if it seems unwise, the power to change it. Whenever lines are drawn by legislation, some may seem unwise, but the responsibility for drawing these lines rests with the legislature and judicial review is limited.17 See, e.g., Schweiker v. Wilson, 450 U.S. 221, 232-235, 101 S.Ct. 1074, 1082-83, 67 L.Ed.2d 186 (1981); Haeg v. City of Pocatello, 98 Idaho 315, 318, 563 P.2d 39, 42 (1977); Newlan v. State, 96 Idaho 711, 716, 535 P.2d 1348, 1353 (1975); Estate of Cargill v. City of Rochester, 119 N.H. 661, 406 A.2d 704, 708 (1979). We agree with the sentiments expressed by other courts which have urged their legislatures to periodically review their statutory provisions which limit tort recoveries. E.g., Jetton v. Jacksonville Electric Authority, 399 So.2d 396, 399 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981); Estate of Cargill v. City of Rochester, 119 N.H. 661, 406 A.2d 704, 709 (1979), appeal dismissed, 445 U.S. 921, 100 S.Ct. 1304, 53 L.Ed.2d 754 (1980); Sambs v. City of Brookfield, 97 Wis.2d 356, 293 N.W.2d 504, 510, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1035, 101 S.Ct. 611, 66 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980).
Leliefeld argues that I.C. § 6-92618 would where more than one person is making a claim permit a recovery of up to $300,000 to any one person. We disagree. From the language of the statute and its legislative history,19 we conclude that the legislature intended to limit recovery to one person arising from personal injury or death to $100,000 unless the governmental entity had secured insurance coverage in excess of that amount.
VIII.
All plaintiffs assign as error the failure of the trial court to award them attorney fees and certain costs. Since we are reversing and remanding for retrial on the issue of liability, these assignments need not be addressed.
The quantum of damages awarded by the jury is adequately supported by the record. Because we find no reversible error with respect to the determination of damages and we consider the damages severable from the liability issue, we affirm that determination. Ferbrache v. Dillon, 100 Idaho 317, 319-20, 597 P.2d 40, 42-43 (1979); I.R.C.P. 59(a); see also Kitto v. Gilbert, 39 Colo.App. 374, 570 P.2d 544 (Colo.App.1977); Smith v. Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Co., 360 So.2d 1098 (Fla.App.1978); Annot., 34 A.L.R.2d 988 (1954).
No costs allowed.
We affirm in part and reverse in part and remand for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
*376McFADDEN, J., Pro Tem. concurs, and SHEPARD., J., concurs except as to Part I, in which he concurs in the result.. I.C. § 6-904(1) was amended in 1978. It now provides:
“Exceptions to governmental liability. — A governmental entity and its employees while acting within the course and scope of their employment and without malice or criminal intent shall not be liable for any claim which:
“1. Arises out of any act or omission of an employee of the governmental entity exercising ordinary care, in reliance upon or the execution or performance of a statutory or regulatory function, whether or not the statute or regulation be valid, or based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a governmental entity or employee thereof, whether or not the discretion be abused.”
Even if applicable, this amendment would not affect our decision.
. The erected signs read “One Lane Bridge for Trucks Buses.”
. E. Cleary, McCormick’s Handbook of the Law of Evidence § 275, at 666 n. 9 (2d ed. 1972).
. In analyzing an example from Wigmore concerning- subsequent repair of machinery involved in an accident, Professor James utilized a transmutation of a proposed direct inference into its deductive form to demonstrate its invalidity as suggested:
“In the case of the repaired machinery we are told: ‘ “People who make such repairs [after an accident] show a consciousness of negligence; A made such repairs; therefore, A was conscious of negligence.” ’ Before this deductive proof can be evaluated, ambiguity must be eliminated from the major premise. By ‘people’ shall we understand ‘some people’ or ‘all people’? If the argument is intended to read, ‘Some people who make such repairs show consciousness of neglience [sic]; A made such repairs; therefore, A was conscious of negligence,-’ it contains an obvious logical fallacy. If intended to read, ‘All people who make such repairs show consciousness of negligence; A made such repairs; therefore, A was conscious of negligence,’ it is logically valid. However, few could be found to accept the premise that all persons who repair machinery after an accident show consciousness of guilt; that is, that no single case could be found of one who, confident of his care in the past, nevertheless made repairs to guard against repetition of an unforeseeable casualty or to preserve future fools against the consequence of their future folly. Here the result of transmuting a proposed direct inference into deductive form is discovery that it is invalid— at least in the terms suggested.” James, Relevancy, Probability and the Law, 29 Calif.L. Rev. 689, 696-97 (1941) (footnotes omitted) (emphasis in the original).
. In 1963 Cal.Gov’t.Code § 830.6 provided:
“Plan or design of construction of, or improvement to, public property. Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable under this chapter for an injury caused by the plan or design of a construction of, or an improvement to, public property where such plan or design has been approved in advance of the construction or improvement by the legislative body of the public entity or by some other body or employee exercising discretionary authority to give such approval or where such plan or design is prepared in conformity with standards previously so approved, if the trial or appellate court determines that there is any substantial evidence upon the basis of which (a) a reasonable public employee could have adopted the plan or design or the standards therefor or (b) a reasonable legislative body or other body or employee could have approved the plan or design or the standards therefor.” 1963 Cal. Stat. ch. 1681, § 1, p. 3272.
. The Illinois statute provided:
“(a) A local public entity is not liable under this Article for an injury caused by the adoption of a plan or design of a construction of, or an improvement to public property where the plan or design has been approved in advance of the construction or improvement by the legislative body of such entity or by some other body or employee exercising discretionary authority to give such approval or where such plan or design is prepared in conformity with standards previously so approved. The local public entity is liable, however, if after the execution of such plan or design it appears from its use that it has created a condition that it is not reasonably safe.
“(b) A public employee is not liable under this Article for an injury caused by the adoption of a plan or design of a construction of, or an improvement to public property.” Ill.Ann.Stat. ch. 85, § 3-103 (Smith-Hurd 1966) (emphasis added).
.The Idaho design immunity provision relevant to this cause provided:
“A governmental entity shall not be liable for any claim which:
“8. Arises out of a plan or design for construction or improvement to the highways, roads, streets, bridges, or other public property where such plan or design is prepared in conformity with standards in effect at the time of construction previously approved in advance of the construction or approved by the legislative body of the governmental entity or by some other body or administrative agency, exercising discretion by authority to give such approval.” 1974 Idaho Sess. Laws ch. 167, p. 1423.
The operative language remains unchanged from that first enacted in 1971. 1971 Idaho . Sess.Laws ch. 150, § 4(7), p. 743, 746.
. I.C. § 49-1504 provides in part:
“Report of accident required. — The accident report required by section 49-1007, Idaho Code, shall contain information to enable the director to determine whether the requirements for the deposit of security under section 49-1505, Idaho Code, are inapplicable by reason of the existence of insurance or other exceptions specified in this act.”
I.C. § 49-1007(c) (as effective at the time of the accident) provided in part:
“(c) Every law enforcement officer, including county and municipal officers, who, in the regular course of duty, investigates a motor vehicle accident ... either at the time of and at the scene of the accident or thereafter by interviewing participants or witnesses shall, within 24 hours after completing such investigation, forward a written report of such accident to the department.” 1969 Idaho Sess.Laws ch. 51, § 2, p. 141.
. I.C. § 49-913 at the time of the trial provided in part that:
“A. No vehicle shall exceed a total outside width including any load thereon, of eight and one-half (8V2) feet ....
“G. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the total outside width of any vehicle using the interstate system in this state may not exceed eight (8) feet, except as permitted by section 49-905, Idaho Code.” 1977 Idaho Sess.Laws ch. 119, p. 255.
I.C. § 49-905 at the time of the accident and of the trial provided:
“PERMITS FOR HEAVIER OR WIDER LOADS. — Upon application in writing to the Idaho transportation board or other proper authorities in charge of, or having jurisdiction over a public highway, such board or authorities may in their discretion issue a special permit to the owner or operator of any vehicle allowing heavier or wider loads than permitted by law to be moved or carried over and on the public highways and bridges.... Such special permits shall be in writing and may limit the time of use and operation over the particular highways and bridges which may be traversed and may contain such special conditions and require such undertaking or other security as the said Idaho transportation board or other proper authority shall deem to be necessary to protect the public highways and bridges from injury, or provide indemnity for any injury to said public highways and bridges or to persons or property resulting from such operation. All such special permits shall be carried in the vehicles to which they refer and shall upon demand be opened to the inspection of any peace officer, any authorized agent of the Idaho transportation board or any officer or employee charged with the care or protection of the public highways. It shall be unlawful for any person to violate, or to cause or permit to be violated, the limitations or conditions of such special permits and any such violation shall be deemed for all purposes to be a violation of the provisions of this chapter.” 1974 Idaho Sess.Laws ch. 12, § 75, p. 109.
. While the trial should have been conducted utilizing I.C. § 49-913 as effective at the time of the accident, 1974 Idaho Sess.Laws ch. 168, p. 1424, the error entailed here by using an incorrect version is not fundamental. I.C. § 49-913 at the time of the accident provided in part:
“A. No vehicle shall exceed a total outside width including any load thereon, of eight (8) feet ... . ”
Since no party raised an objection to the use and the error is not fundamental, we consider this error to have been waived.
. The Idaho State Department of Transportation’s Special Permit Regulations § 914.4 state:
“Red Flags to Mark Oversize Loads
“The traveling public shall be protected by marking the extremities of oversize vehicles or loads with warning flags. The color of such flags shall be plain red with no wording, emblem, symbol or insignia inscribed thereon and shall be in good condition with a minimum size of 18 by 18 inches. The location of the red flags shall be as follows:
Front — Fastened to each front corner of the vehicle or load.
Rear — Fastened to each comer at the rearmost part of vehicle or load at a height of seven (7) feet above the highway surface or at the top of the load, whichever is greater. Side — Fastened to mark any extremity of size or at the widest part.” (Emphasis added.)
We also note that the Department’s Special Permit Regulations § 914.5 state that “[fjlagmen shall be required at particular locations on a route of travel where a hazard to traffic will be created by the overlegal vehicle or load, such as: ... Overwidth — When crossing narrow bridges.”
.I.C. § 10-111 provides:
“Amount sought for damages not disclosed to jury. — In any civil action for damages, the amount of general damages sued for shall not be disclosed to the jury by court, counsel or any party and it shall be grounds for mistrial for any person to violate the prohibition of this act whether by specific statements or generalized argument. In furtherance of the provisions of this act it is declared that it is the exclusive province of the jury in a civil action for money damages involving allegations of general damages to resolve such issues of fact and it is against the policy of the state of Idaho for the jurors required to make such determinations to be informed of the particulars of allegations of damages in the pleadings on file with the court, by the arguments of counsel or otherwise, the dollar amount appraisal or evaluation of such damages being the exclusive province of the trier of fact; provided, this act shall not be construed to prohibit proof of damages or presentation of arguments which are legally relevant and proper in view of the record and issues before the court in any action for money damages.”
. “[N]or shall any state ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const, amend. XIV, § 1.
. “All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform or abolish the same whenever they may deem it necessary; and no special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted that may not be altered, revoked, or repealed by the legislature.” Id. Const, art. 1, § 2.
. All of the versions of I.C. § 6-926 established a limitation on recovery. The version used in the trial court, reflecting the second amendment of 1976, 1976 Idaho Sess.Laws, ch. 310, p. 1069, while technically the wrong version to use did contain the $100,000 limitation which is at the root of the issue of constitutionality under our equal protection analysis.
“If any judgment or claim against a governmental entity or its employee under this act exceeds the one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) per person limited to three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) in any one (1) accident where two (2) or more persons have claims or judgments on account of personal injury or death, the court shall reduce the amount to the minimum requirement unless the governmental entity has provided liability coverage in excess of the minimum requirement. In this event the court shall reduce the amount of the claim or judgment to a sum equal to the applicable limits provided in the insurance policy or provided under the comprehensive liability plan.” 1976 Idaho Sess.Laws ch. 310, p. 1069.
For purposes of this decision, the amendments and the current I.C. § 6-926 are substantively equivalent. We are concerned with whether the State may limit its tort liability.
. “In the area of economics and social welfare, a State does not violate the Equal Protection Clause merely because the classifications made by its laws are imperfect. If the classification has some ‘reasonable basis,’ it does not offend the Constitution simply because the classification ‘is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality.’ ” Danridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 485, 90 S.Ct. 1153, 1161, 25 L.Ed.2d 491 (1970) (quoting Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61, 78, 31 S.Ct. 337, 340, 55 L.Ed.2d 369 (1911)).
."When a legal distinction is determined, as no one doubts that it may be, between night and day, childhood and maturity, or any other extremes, a point has to be fixed or a line has to be drawn, or gradually picked out by successive decisions, to mark where the change takes place. Looked at by itself without regard to the necessity behind it the line or point seems arbitrary. It might as well or nearly as well be a little more to one side or the other. But when it is seen that a line or point there must be, and that there is no mathematical or logical way of fixing it precisely, the decision of the Legislature must be accepted unless we can say that it is very wide of any reasonable mark.” Louisville Gas & Electric Co. v. Coleman, 277 U.S. 32, 41, 48 S.Ct. 423, 426, 72 L.Ed. 770 (1928) (Holmes, J., dissenting).
. Leliefeld’s argument is based on I.C. § 6-926(b) which was not applicable to this cause of action. Its applicable precursor, 1971 Idaho Sess.Laws ch. 150, § 26, p. 743, 749, is what we interpret.
. The Legislative Council Committee on Tort Claims reported on August 15, 1968, that:
“Liability on the part of a government entity shall be limited to $100,000 per person, $300,-000 per incident, and $100,000 property damage per incident.”