38 Wash. App. 812 - Newby v. Gerry’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently December 2012
15 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 397 So. 2d 475 - Bazley v. Tortorich · 85 Wash. 2d 154 - LaPlante v. State · 62 Wash. 2d 195 - Balise v. Underwood · 91 Wash. 2d 230 - Seattle-First National Bank v. Shoreline Concrete Co. · 97 Wash. 2d 880 - Glass v. Stahl Specialty Company
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Sound public policy demands that an intentional wrongdoer not use the workers' compensation laws as a shelter from liability. A number of courts in other jurisdictions have relied on this rationale in allowing such suits to proceed. * * * Forbidding suit would allow an employee to bludgeon a co-worker with civil impunity, and the injured worker might be required to accept less than full compensation for his injuries. * * * Moreover, barring suit would remove the deterrent effect of civil liability and damages. As the court noted in Bryan v. Utah Inti, [ 533 P.2d 892 (Utah, 1975) ] supra at 894: "The policy of our law has always been to allow one injured through the intentional act of another, to seek redress from the one intending harm. That policy has the salutary effect of deterring intentional injury. It would serve no social purpose to allow an employee to intentionally injure another employee engaged in the same employment, then use an otherwise socially beneficial, remedial, statute as a shield for such wrongdoing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mills v. Reynolds“The employer and worker’s compensation fund will benefit because it has a lien on any recovery from the tortfeasor for benefits paid.... The employee will benefit by possessing a right to recover for the full measure of his injuries.... The public will benefit by a fairer allocation of compensation for injuries, and the deterrence of workplace intentional torts. The consumers will benefit because the costs of the wrongdoer’s actions are not passed on as higher prices for goods and services. Only the intentional tortfeasor stands to lose if a suit proceeds. He is not deserving of protection.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Tippmann v. Hensler“[A]ll phases of the premises are withdrawn from private controversy, and sure and certain relief for workers, injured in their work, and their families and dependents is hereby provided regardless of questions of fault and to the exclusion of every other remedy, proceeding or compensation, except as otherwise provided in this title; and to that end all civil actions and civil causes of action for such personal injuries and all jurisdiction of the courts of the state over such causes are hereby abolished, except as in this title provided.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.