Wash. Rev. Code » Title 51 · Chapter 51.24
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 51.24.020 (2026)

Action against employer for intentional injury

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
If injury results to a worker from the deliberate intention of his or her employer to produce such injury, the worker or beneficiary of the worker shall have the privilege to take under this title and also have cause of action against the employer as if this title had not been enacted, for any damages in excess of compensation and benefits paid or payable under this title.
[ 1984 c 218 s 2; 1977 ex.s. c 350 s 31; 1973 1st ex.s. c 154 s 94; 1961 c 23 s 51.24.020. Prior: 1957 c 70 s 24; prior: 1927 c 310 s 5, part; 1919 c 131 s 5, part; 1911 c 74 s 6, part; RRS s 7680, part.]

Notes:

Severability—1973 1st ex.s. c 154: See note following RCW 2.12.030.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 107 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: Birklid v. Boeing Co., 904 P.2d 278 (Wash. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Birklid v. Boeing Co., 904 P.2d 278 (Wash. 1995). · cites it 22× “010, and the deliberate intent to injure exception found in RCW 51.24.020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified the following two questions to this court: 1.”
Birklid v. Boeing Co., 11 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 97 (Wash. 1995). · cites it 21× “010, and the deliberate intent to injure exception found in RCW 51.24.020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified the following two questions to this court: 1.”
Gorman v. Garlock, Inc., 118 P.3d 311 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 17× “" RCW 51.24.020. Lockheed and Todd together moved to dismiss Gorman's suit pursuant to Civil Rule (CR) 12(b)(6), alleging that, because Gorman's suit was barred by the exclusive liability provision of the LHWCA, he had failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted.”
Gorman v. Garlock, Inc., 155 Wash. 2d 198 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 17× “” RCW 51.24.020. Lockheed and Todd together moved to dismiss Gorman’s suit pursuant to Civil Rule (CR) 12(b)(6), alleging that, because Gorman’s suit was barred by the exclusive liability provision of the LHWCA, he had failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted.”
Vallandigham v. Clover Park Sch. Dist. No. 400, 154 Wash. 2d 16 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 9× “RCW 51.24.020. This court has interpreted this exception to mean that the employer acts with deliberate intention when it willfully disregards actual knowledge that employee injury is certain to occur.”
Vallandigham v. Clover Park Sch. Dist., 109 P.3d 805 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 9× “RCW 51.24.020. This court has interpreted this exception to mean that the employer acts with deliberate intention when it willfully disregards actual knowledge that employee injury is certain to occur.”
Folsom v. Burger King, 958 P.2d 301 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 8× “is an Idaho corporation whose only business is to manage and operate Burger King restaurants in the Spokane and northern Idaho area. Edwin Hatter is the sole shareholder of the voting common stock of Hatter, Inc.”
Folsom v. Burger King, 135 Wash. 2d 658 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 8× “Employer Immunity The trial court found there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the plaintiffs’ “deliberate intention” theory under RCW 51.24.020 and, accordingly, denied summary judgment to the employer, Hatter, Inc.”
Schuchman v. Hoehn, 79 P.3d 6 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 22× “The Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) determined that Mallory was an employee covered under the Act. Her mother, Deborah L.”
Sheila Larose, Appellant/cross-resp v. King Cnty. & Pda, Respondent/cross-appellants, 437 P.3d 701 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 7× “2) the trial court erred in ruling that the Industrial Insurance Act (IIA), title 51 RCW, bars LaRose’s negligence claims because a genuine issue of fact exists regarding whether her PTSD and related injuries constituted a compensable “injury” under the IIA; (3) LaRose did not…”
Walston v. Boeing Co., 334 P.3d 519 (Wash. 2014). · cites it 6× “RCW 51.24.020. Under our precedent, an employer deliberately injures an employee if “the employer ha[s] actual knowledge that an injury [is] certain to occur and willfully disregard [s] that knowledge.”
Flanigan v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 869 P.2d 14 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 6× “RCW 51.24.020; Clark , at 174. Further, where the worker elects to pursue the third party, the worker is guaranteed 25 percent of the recovery remaining after attorney fees and costs, thus providing an incentive for the worker to pursue third party claims.”
Show all 107 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.