Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bainbridge v. Boise Cascade Plywood Mill

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided June 2, 1986No. 15649Published

1DissentHuntley, Justice

I respectfully dissent and my reasons therefor require a statement of facts slightly expanded from that presented by the majority opinion.

At the beginning of her employment, Ms. Bainbridge did her patching work at what was known as “glue station No. 2,” but soon switched to “glue station No. 4,” where she worked for the remainder of her employment with Boise Cascade.

Ms. Bainbridge alleges that she regularly inhaled chemical fumes containing formaldehyde from the agent used in the gluing process and sawdust emitted from the machines located directly behind her which cut the plywood boards.

Soon…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Leliefeld v. JohnsonIdaho Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Umphrey v. SprinkelIdaho Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Kiger v. Idaho CorporationIdaho Supreme Court · 1963
  4. Frisbie v. Sunshine Mining CompanyIdaho Supreme Court · 1969
  5. Jones v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 1977

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API