Washington Supreme Court· 10/26/1995

Birklid v. Boeing Co.

Citations

127 Wash. 2d 853
11 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 97
904 P.2d 278
1995 Wash. LEXIS 231

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”
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
stating that court has not adopted substantial certainty test
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.”
physical condition case involving dizziness, dryness in nose and throat, burning eyes, and upset stomach

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Talmadge

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

83 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

30 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.