Bylsma v. Burger King: Product Liability and Emotional Distress
This paper examines the product liability case of Bylsma v. Burger King Corporation, in which a Washington State deputy sheriff discovered spit on a Whopper he had purchased while on duty. The paper traces the case background, the plaintiff's legal theories under the Washington Product Liability Act (RCW 7.72), and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' certified question to the Washington Supreme Court regarding emotional distress damages in the absence of physical injury. It also explores strict liability standards in the food service industry and concludes with recommendations for Burger King on reducing future exposure to similar claims.
- Introduction: Overview of product liability law and essay scope
- Case Background: Facts and distinguishing features of the Bylsma incident
- Legal Analysis Under Washington Product Liability Law: RCW 7.72 statutory framework applied to the case
- Court Rulings and Implications: Ninth Circuit and Washington Supreme Court rulings
- Recommendations for the Defendant: Practical steps Burger King should take going forward
- Conclusions: Normative critique of frivolous product liability litigation
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds its analysis in specific statutory language, quoting the Revised Code of Washington (RCW 7.72) and the Washington Product Liability Act directly, which adds credibility and precision to its legal reasoning.
- It uses a clear case-study structure — background, analysis, court ruling, and recommendations — that guides the reader logically from facts to legal implications to practical outcomes.
- By including both the majority ruling and the dissenting opinion on appeal, the paper demonstrates awareness of legal ambiguity and competing interpretations, strengthening its analytical balance.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper exemplifies source-integrated legal analysis: it weaves statutory text, appellate court language, and secondary commentary (Reuters, Lexology, Food Safety News) into a unified argument rather than presenting them as separate blocks. This technique shows readers how to synthesize primary legal authority with journalistic and analytical sources to support a position.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a brief framing introduction, then moves into case background covering the incident's facts and distinguishing features. The analysis section applies RCW 7.72 and strict liability doctrine to the facts. A subsequent section addresses court rulings and their broader implications for the food service industry. Practical recommendations for Burger King follow, and the paper closes with a normative conclusion about the role of common sense in product liability law. Total structure: six logical sections progressing from facts to law to policy.
Introduction
Product liability is a complicated and expansive area of law with significant consequences for commerce and consumer protection. The role of the consumer is very important in the economic processes and political organization of our society. As a result of this influence, product liability laws are continually evolving and reaching into new areas of commerce.
This essay examines the product liability case of Bylsma v. Burger King Corporation. It documents the background of the case and its relation to product safety, discusses the legal theories and strategies the plaintiff employed — including the current appeal — and explores the regulatory framework designed to protect consumers. Finally, the essay offers recommendations to the company to help avoid similar problems in the future.
Case Background
On March 29, 2009, the plaintiff, Edward Bylsma, a Vancouver, Washington deputy sheriff, while on duty, drove his marked patrol car through the drive-through of a Burger King restaurant owned by one of the defendants and franchised by Burger King Corp., the other defendant. Bylsma ordered lunch, purchased a Whopper with cheese, and drove away. Before eating, he had, per the complaint, "an uneasy feeling." He pulled into a nearby parking lot, opened the wrapping, lifted the bun, and discovered spit on his sandwich.
There have been many lawsuits claiming that food was purposely tainted with saliva or other bodily fluids, but this case has two distinct features that set it apart from most food product liability cases. First, Bylsma had the spit tested for DNA, which was then traced to a specific employee at the restaurant. Second, Bylsma did not actually eat the burger, meaning he could not claim any physical harm from ingesting it.
Bylsma claimed that the product made him liable for "emotional distress, including vomiting, nausea, food aversion, and sleeplessness." The central question became whether these harms were sufficient to support a judgment in his favor. Washington's Product Liability Act, enacted in 1981, plays a major role in shaping the analysis. That statute proclaims that any manufacturer, packer, distributor, carrier, holder, marketer, or seller of a food or nonalcoholic beverage intended for human consumption shall not be subject to civil liability in actions premised upon an individual's weight gain, obesity, or associated health conditions resulting from long-term purchase or consumption of food or beverages.
The law was enacted to "provide a single cause of action for 'harm caused by the manufacture, production, making, construction, fabrication, design, formula, preparation, assembly, installation, testing, warnings, instructions, marketing, packaging, storage or labeling of a product.'" It provides for liability on a negligence basis for some defects and imposes strict liability "if the claimant's harm was proximately caused by the fact that the product was not reasonably safe in construction or not reasonably safe because it did not conform to the manufacturer's express warranty or to the implied warranties under" Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code.
Legal Analysis Under Washington Product Liability Law
The Revised Code of Washington (RCW), which codifies state law, helps put this argument in perspective. Under RCW 7.72.030(2)(a): "A product is not reasonably safe in construction if, when the product left the control of the manufacturer, the product deviated in some material way from the design specifications or performance standards of the manufacturer, or deviated in some material way from otherwise identical units of the same product line." In this case, Bylsma's Whopper was tampered with and therefore deviated from a normal Whopper that would have been served to any other customer.
There is still more to this case than simply awarding the plaintiff for being served a defective burger. As noted above, some form of demonstrable damage must have occurred to make Burger King liable. Baker (2013) explained how the case remained alive: "The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had asked the state high court to determine if the customer could seek emotional-distress damages under the Washington Product Liability Act, Wash. Rev. Code chapter 7.72, without showing physical injury. The appeals court said plaintiff Edward Bylsma can file an amended product liability complaint stating his emotional-distress claim against Burger King and franchisee Kaizen Restaurants in line with the WPLA."
Stearns (2009) introduced important context in his article about product liability in the food service industry, noting many common misconceptions. He argued that "under the new rule of strict liability, to hold a manufacturer liable, a person injured while using a product need only show that: (1) the product was defective; (2) it was used as intended; and (3) the defect caused the injury. The care used in the manufacture of the product is irrelevant to the determination of liability. The only issue in a product liability case is the effectiveness of the product, not the manufacturer's conduct in somehow allowing the defect to arise. As a result, proof of negligence is not required to recover damages."
Works Cited
Baker, R. (2013). 9th Circuit restores 'phlegm burger' suit following Wash. high court guidance. Reuters, 27 Feb 2013. Retrieved from http://blog.thomsonreuters.com/index.php/9th-circuit-restores-phlegm-burger-suit-following-wash-high-court-guidance/
Gullo, K. (2013). Burger King suit over spit in sandwich revived by court. Bloomberg, 12 Feb 2013. Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-12/burger-king-lawsuit-over-spit-in-meal-revived-by-appeals-court.html
Payne, C. (2013). State's high court: Washington Product Liability Act permits emotional distress in the absence of injury. Lexology, 13 Feb 2013. Retrieved from http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=416db404-a4d7-4753-9726-cdae29542663
Stearns, D. (2009). Product liability: How it turned strict. Food Safety News, 2 Sep 2009. Retrieved from http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2009/09/product-liability-how-it-turned-strict/#.UUDN1FfX842
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Edward Bylsma v. Burger King Corporation; Kaizen Restaurants. Filed 12 Feb 2013. Retrieved from http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/02/12/10-36125.pdf
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.