WA Legal Roundup
One more out of Division III:
Rothwell was asked to clean a suicide scene at a school, asked to look through the classrooms for bombs, asked to clean up a bag that contained a pipe bomb. Needless to say, she was a little distraught. She was then asked to clean up the vigil candles and cards nightly. Oh yeah, she knew the victim personally.
She brought suit for IIED and NIED. The trial court dismissed as precluded by the IIA. Rothwell argued that this wasn't in the course and scope of employment. The court held that she was in the course and scope because the statutory definition required only that she act at the employer's direction in furtherance of their objectives. As to the injury, the IIA requires "a sudden and tangible happening, of a traumatic nature, producing an immediate or prompt result." Because the injury came on over the course of the several tasks, the court held that it did not fall under the ambit of the IIA.
More interestingly is what the court didn't do. An exception to the IIA includes intentional acts which the employer knew or should have known would cause harm to the employee. This seems like it certainly would have fallen under that.
Thoughts from those of you who know the Boeing case to which I'm referring?