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.
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.