Birklid test (Washington) · Go Syfert
← Washington issues

Birklid test in Washington

19 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2025 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (10)

CaseFollowedCited
Vallandigham v. Clover Park School District No. 400green
wash · 2005 · cited in 8 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2007–2018
2 sentences

2018In doing so, the court emphasized that “the first prong of the Birklid test can be met in only very limited circumstances where continued injury is not only substantially certain but certain to occur.” Id. at 32 .

2018In doing so, the court emphasized that “the first prong of the Birklid test can be met in only very limited circumstances where continued injury is not only substantially certain but certain to occur.” Id. at 32 .

28
Stenger v. Stanwood School Districtgreen
washctapp · 1999 · cited in 4 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2003–2005
2 sentences

2005App. at 108 . ¶43 In Stenger , Division One focused on “whether a jury could conclude that [the district’s] efforts to accommodate Jason in the classroom were inadequate and thus constitute willful disregard under the Birklid rule.” Stenger, 95 Wn.

2005App. at 108 . ¶43 In Stenger , Division One focused on “whether a jury could conclude that [the district’s] efforts to accommodate Jason in the classroom were inadequate and thus constitute willful disregard under the Birklid rule.” Stenger, 95 Wn.

24
Minton v. Ralston Purina Co.green
wash · 2002 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
2 sentences

2005In Minton v. Ralston Purina Co., 146 Wn.2d 385, 388, 391 , 47 P.3d 556 (2002) we determined that the employee injury was accidental and found no intentional tort where a condensation tank exploded, injuring the plaintiff.

2005In Minton v. Ralston Purina Co., 146 Wn.2d 385, 388, 391 , 47 P.3d 556 (2002) we determined that the employee injury was accidental and found no intentional tort where a condensation tank exploded, injuring the plaintiff.

22
Birklid v. Boeing Co.green
wash · 1995 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1999–2005
2 sentences

2005See id. at 865-66, 904 P.2d 278 . ¶ 29 In this case, we apply the Birklid test in determining whether the Clover Park School District willfully disregarded actual knowledge of certain employee injury.

2005See id. at 865-66, 904 P.2d 278 . ¶ 29 In this case, we apply the Birklid test in determining whether the Clover Park School District willfully disregarded actual knowledge of certain employee injury.

12
Judy v. Hanford Environmental Health Foundationgreen
washctapp · 2001 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
2 sentences

2004Judy, 106 Wn.

2004Judy, 106 Wn.

12
Walston v. Boeing Co.green
wash · 2014 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015But, the Walston court ultimately reached its conclusion by reasoning that asbestos exposure is not certain to cause mesothelioma or any other disease—not because Walston failed to provide evidence of physical injury—contemporaneous or delayed. 181 Wn.2d at 397 ("[Asbestos exposure] does cause a risk of disease, but as we have previously held, that is insufficient to meet the Birklid standard.").

2015But, the Walston court ultimately reached its conclusion by reasoning that asbestos exposure is not certain to cause mesothelioma or any other disease—not because Walston failed to provide evidence of physical injury—contemporaneous or delayed. 181 Wn.2d at 397 ("[Asbestos exposure] does cause a risk of disease, but as we have previously held, that is insufficient to meet the Birklid standard.").

11
Harris v. Montanagreen
mont · 2013 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
1 sentence

2014Unlike Washington' s Birklid test, however, the Montana Supreme Court appears to have injected an additional judicially crafted requirement into Montana' s scheme when it also held that Harris had " failed to provide any evidence from which it] can infer that the [ Department of Correction' s] intent was to harm rather than educate and train." Harris, 368 Mont. at 284 ( emphasis added). 10 No. 44035 -1 - II Wn.2d at 865).

11
Vallandigham v. Clover Park School Dist.green
washctapp · 2003 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
2 sentences

2005See Vallandigham, 119 Wash.App. at 108 , 79 P.3d 18 . ¶ 43 In Stenger , Division One focused on "whether a jury could conclude that [the district's] efforts to accommodate Jason in the classroom were inadequate and thus constitute willful disregard under the Birklid rule. " Stenger, 95 Wash.App. at 813 , 977 P.2d 660 (emphasis added).

2005See Vallandigham, 119 Wash.App. at 108 , 79 P.3d 18 . ¶ 43 In Stenger , Division One focused on "whether a jury could conclude that [the district's] efforts to accommodate Jason in the classroom were inadequate and thus constitute willful disregard under the Birklid rule. " Stenger, 95 Wash.App. at 813 , 977 P.2d 660 (emphasis added).

11
Vallandigham v. Clover Park School District No. 400green
washctapp · 2003 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
2 sentences

2005See Vallandigham, 119 Wash.App. at 108 , 79 P.3d 18 . ¶ 43 In Stenger , Division One focused on "whether a jury could conclude that [the district's] efforts to accommodate Jason in the classroom were inadequate and thus constitute willful disregard under the Birklid rule. " Stenger, 95 Wash.App. at 813 , 977 P.2d 660 (emphasis added).

2005See Vallandigham, 119 Wash.App. at 108 , 79 P.3d 18 . ¶ 43 In Stenger , Division One focused on "whether a jury could conclude that [the district's] efforts to accommodate Jason in the classroom were inadequate and thus constitute willful disregard under the Birklid rule. " Stenger, 95 Wash.App. at 813 , 977 P.2d 660 (emphasis added).

11
Baker v. Schatzgreen
washctapp · 1996 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
2 sentences

2004See Baker v. Schatz, 80 Wn.

2004See Baker v. Schatz, 80 Wn.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (12)

CaseCitedYears
Birklid v. Boeing Co. green
wash · 1995
2 sentences

2025The Birklid test requires an employer to know that an injury was “certain to occur.” 127 Wn.2d at 865 .

2025The Birklid test requires an employer to know that an injury was “certain to occur.” 127 Wn.2d at 865 .

91999–2025
Hope v. Larry's Markets green
washctapp · 2001
2 sentences

2013In Vallandigham, our Supreme Court also acknowledged that “in cases involving chemical exposure, repeated, continuous injury and the observation of the injury by the employer can satisfy the first prong of the Birklid test.” 154 Wn.2d at 30 -31 (citing Hope, 108 Wn.

2013In Vallandigham, our Supreme Court also acknowledged that “in cases involving chemical exposure, repeated, continuous injury and the observation of the injury by the employer can satisfy the first prong of the Birklid test.” 154 Wn.2d at 30 -31 (citing Hope, 108 Wn.

32005–2013
Minton v. Ralston Purina Co. green
wash · 2002
2 sentences

2005In Minton v. Ralston Purina Co., 146 Wn.2d 385, 388, 391 , 47 P.3d 556 (2002) we determined that the employee injury was accidental and found no intentional tort where a condensation tank exploded, injuring the plaintiff.

2005In Minton v. Ralston Purina Co., 146 Wn.2d 385, 388, 391 , 47 P.3d 556 (2002) we determined that the employee injury was accidental and found no intentional tort where a condensation tank exploded, injuring the plaintiff.

22005–2005
Nielson v. WOLFKILL CORPORATION green
washctapp · 1987
2 sentences

2004Nielson v. Wolfkill Corp., 47 Wash.App. 352, 355 , 734 P.2d 961 [ review denied, 109 Wash.2d 1008 ], [ 1987 WL 503029 ] (1987).

2004Nielson v. Wolfkill Corp., 47 Wn.

22004–2004
Folsom v. Burger King green
wash · 1998
2 sentences

2014Taser exposure involves two electrified dart-like probes being shot into the recipient' s back; on contact, these probes transmit an electrical charge that causes the recipient' s muscles to seize up and to convulse and affects " sensory and motor 11 "` [ E] ven an act that has substantial certainty of producing injury does not rise to the level of specificintent to cause injury. ' Vallandigham, 154 Wn.2d at 29 ( quoting Folsom v. Burger King, 135 Wn.2d 658, 665 , 958 P. 2d 301 ( 1998)). 12 Vallandigham emphasized that Washington courts have found only the first prong of the Birklid test met i

2014Taser exposure involves two electrified dart-like probes being shot into the recipient' s back; on contact, these probes transmit an electrical charge that causes the recipient' s muscles to seize up and to convulse and affects " sensory and motor 11 "` [ E] ven an act that has substantial certainty of producing injury does not rise to the level of specificintent to cause injury. ' Vallandigham, 154 Wn.2d at 29 ( quoting Folsom v. Burger King, 135 Wn.2d 658, 665 , 958 P. 2d 301 ( 1998)). 12 Vallandigham emphasized that Washington courts have found only the first prong of the Birklid test met i

12014–2014
Folsom v. Burger King green
wash · 1998
2 sentences

2014Taser exposure involves two electrified dart-like probes being shot into the recipient' s back; on contact, these probes transmit an electrical charge that causes the recipient' s muscles to seize up and to convulse and affects " sensory and motor 11 "` [ E] ven an act that has substantial certainty of producing injury does not rise to the level of specificintent to cause injury. ' Vallandigham, 154 Wn.2d at 29 ( quoting Folsom v. Burger King, 135 Wn.2d 658, 665 , 958 P. 2d 301 ( 1998)). 12 Vallandigham emphasized that Washington courts have found only the first prong of the Birklid test met i

2014Taser exposure involves two electrified dart-like probes being shot into the recipient' s back; on contact, these probes transmit an electrical charge that causes the recipient' s muscles to seize up and to convulse and affects " sensory and motor 11 "` [ E] ven an act that has substantial certainty of producing injury does not rise to the level of specificintent to cause injury. ' Vallandigham, 154 Wn.2d at 29 ( quoting Folsom v. Burger King, 135 Wn.2d 658, 665 , 958 P. 2d 301 ( 1998)). 12 Vallandigham emphasized that Washington courts have found only the first prong of the Birklid test met i

12014–2014
Keilhamer v. West Coast Telephone Co. neutral
wash · 1941
2 sentences

2014The record also shows that the Taser incapacitates 99 percent of the troopers exposed to this training. 20 See, e. g., Keilhamer v. West Coast Telephone Co., 11 Wn.2d 24, 31 , 118 P. 2d 173 ( 1941) plaintiff recovered for injuries suffered after being shocked while using telephone). 21_ Br. _ f Appellant at 36. o 22 WSP also argues that a " temporary pain or discomfort" is not sufficient to meet the Birklid test that the employer willfully disregarded actual knowledge of certain injury, and that the effects of Taser exposure did not meet the standard of a "' continued injury. "' Br. of Appella

2014The record also shows that the Taser incapacitates 99 percent of the troopers exposed to this training. 20 See, e. g., Keilhamer v. West Coast Telephone Co., 11 Wn.2d 24, 31 , 118 P. 2d 173 ( 1941) plaintiff recovered for injuries suffered after being shocked while using telephone). 21_ Br. _ f Appellant at 36. o 22 WSP also argues that a " temporary pain or discomfort" is not sufficient to meet the Birklid test that the employer willfully disregarded actual knowledge of certain injury, and that the effects of Taser exposure did not meet the standard of a "' continued injury. "' Br. of Appella

12014–2014
Vallandigham v. CLOVER PARK SCHOOL DIST. green
wash · 2005
2 sentences

2007Vallandigham, 154 Wash.2d at 18-19 , 109 P.3d 805 . ¶ 18 The court emphasized that the first prong "can be met in only very limited circumstances where continued injury is not only substantially certain [to occur] but certain to occur." Vallandigham, 154 Wash.2d at 32 , 109 P.3d 805 .

2007Vallandigham, 154 Wash.2d at 18-19 , 109 P.3d 805 . ¶ 18 The court emphasized that the first prong "can be met in only very limited circumstances where continued injury is not only substantially certain [to occur] but certain to occur." Vallandigham, 154 Wash.2d at 32 , 109 P.3d 805 .

12007–2007
Goad v. Hambridge green
washctapp · 1997
2 sentences

2005App. 98, 100, 104 , 931 P.2d 200 (1997) (employee injured when he reached his hand inside a planer whose safety mechanism had been disabled). ¶32 The Court of Appeals has found that the first prong of the Birklid test was met only three times.

2005App. 98, 100, 104 , 931 P.2d 200 (1997) (employee injured when he reached his hand inside a planer whose safety mechanism had been disabled). ¶32 The Court of Appeals has found that the first prong of the Birklid test was met only three times.

12005–2005
Hope v. Larry's Markets green
washctapp · 2001
2 sentences

2005Id. at 194, 29 P.3d 1268 . ¶ 34 Stenger is the only case in which a Washington court has found the first prong of the Birklid test was met absent injuries caused by chemical exposure.

2005Id. at 194, 29 P.3d 1268 . ¶ 34 Stenger is the only case in which a Washington court has found the first prong of the Birklid test was met absent injuries caused by chemical exposure.

12005–2005
Judy v. HANFORD ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH green
washctapp · 2001
2 sentences

2004Judy, 106 Wash.App. at 32 , 22 P.3d 810 (Summary judgment must be granted unless a reasonable jury could conclude that both prongs are satisfied.).

2004Judy, 106 Wash.App. at 32 , 22 P.3d 810 (Summary judgment must be granted unless a reasonable jury could conclude that both prongs are satisfied.).

12004–2004
Ross v. Maumee City Schools green
ohioctapp · 1995
2 sentences

1999In a similar case, an Ohio court reversed a grant of summary judgment and remanded for trial an instructional assistant’s claims that her employer intentionally disregarded her requests to abate a dangerous classroom situation after *814 a disabled student had repeatedly injured her. 5 Ross v. Maumee City Schools, 103 Ohio App. 3d 58 , 658 N.E.2d 800 (1995).

1999In a similar case, an Ohio court reversed a grant of summary judgment and remanded for trial an instructional assistant’s claims that her employer intentionally disregarded her requests to abate a dangerous classroom situation after *814 a disabled student had repeatedly injured her. 5 Ross v. Maumee City Schools, 103 Ohio App. 3d 58 , 658 N.E.2d 800 (1995).

11999–1999

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 51.24.020 (18) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 51.04.010 (14) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 51.08.100 (4) USC § 20u.s.c.1400-1487 (3) USC § 20u.s.c.1412 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check