Birklid v. Boeing Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that employer who knowingly exposed workers to toxic ehemical fumes had “deliberate intention” to harm employees where employer had “actual knowledge that an injury was certain to occur and willfully disregarded that knowledge”
• holding 17 deliberate intention claim sufficient where defendant “knew in advance its workers 18 would become ill” from exposure to chemical (emphasis added)
• discussing the court's broadened interpretation of the statutory phrase \deliberate intention\ found in RCW 51.24.020
• discussing the court’s broadened interpretation of the statutory phrase “deliberate intention” found in RCW 51.24.020
• limiting the tort of outrage to only those acts that are “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.”
• listing elements necessary for an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).