Sheriff’s deputy can sue over uneaten phlegm burger
Burger King Corp. promises that you can Have it your way at its restaurants. But that motto didnt hold true for one sheriffs deputy, who received a phlegm-filled burger at one of the chains Washington state locations.
February 13, 2013 at 06:31 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Burger King Corp. promises that you can “Have it your way” at its restaurants. But that motto didn't hold true for one sheriff's deputy, who received a phlegm-filled burger at one of the chain's Washington state locations.
Sheriff's deputy Ed Bylsma was served the tainted burger at a Burger King drive-through in March 2009. Bylsma, who was in his police uniform, says that he became suspicious when the employee handing him the food would not make eye contact. Upon inspection, he found a thick glob of saliva on his meal.
Although Bylsma hadn't taken a bite of the burger, he sued Burger King for product liability, negligence and vicarious liability. In his suit, Bylsma claimed that he has suffered “ongoing emotional trauma from the incident, including vomiting, nausea, food anxiety and sleeplessness and has sought treatment by a mental health professional.”
A district court initially ruled against the officer, holding that the Washington Product Liability Act (WPLA) does not provide for emotional distress damages unless a customer has actually eaten contaminated food. On appeal, however, the 9th Circuit said that the law was vague, and sent the case to the Washington Supreme Court to consider.
That court sided with the disgusted deputy, stating in its opinion: “Common sense tells us that food consumption is a personal matter and contaminated food is closely associated with disgust and other kinds of emotional turmoil.”
In light of that decision, the 9th Circuit on Tuesday ruled in favor of Bylsma, allowing him to continue his quest for emotional damages at the district court level.
In case you're wondering, the Burger King spitter was taken off the streets, at least temporarily: DNA testing matched the saliva on the burger to a restaurant employee, who pleaded guilty to third-degree assault against an officer and was sentenced to three months in prison. Another employee was also fired as a result of the incident.
Read more at the Wall Street Journal.
For more food-related coverage on InsideCounsel, see:
Sheriff's deputy Ed Bylsma was served the tainted burger at a
Although Bylsma hadn't taken a bite of the burger, he sued
A district court initially ruled against the officer, holding that the Washington Product Liability Act (WPLA) does not provide for emotional distress damages unless a customer has actually eaten contaminated food. On appeal, however, the 9th Circuit said that the law was vague, and sent the case to the Washington Supreme Court to consider.
That court sided with the disgusted deputy, stating in its opinion: “Common sense tells us that food consumption is a personal matter and contaminated food is closely associated with disgust and other kinds of emotional turmoil.”
In light of that decision, the 9th Circuit on Tuesday ruled in favor of Bylsma, allowing him to continue his quest for emotional damages at the district court level.
In case you're wondering, the
Read more at the Wall Street Journal.
For more food-related coverage on InsideCounsel, see:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCoinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
- 2Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 3Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
- 4'Almost an Arms Race': California Law Firms Scooped Up Lateral Talent by the Handful in 2024
- 5Pittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250