Product Liability Law

Spit-laced burger is grounds for emotional distress suit, state supreme court says


image

Image from Shutterstock.

A sheriff’s deputy who claims he was served–but did not eat–a spit-laced burger can sue the burger maker under state product liability law for emotional distress, the Washington Supreme Court has held.

The court, in a 6-3 decision (PDF) Thursday, said state law permits relief for emotional distress damages, in the absence of physical injury, caused by being served a contaminated food product, if the emotional distress is a reasonable reaction, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports.

Clark County sheriff’s deputy Edward Bylsma had sued Burger King Corp. and a Vancouver-area franchise in 2009 after he said he was served a Whopper topped with spit by a Burger King employee with a criminal record.

Blysma didn’t eat the burger in question. After receiving his food, he lifted the top bun and saw what he described as a “slimy, clear and white phlegm glob” that was later determined to be spit on the patty.

A DNA test confirmed that the employee was the culprit. He pleaded guilty to assault and was sentenced to 90 days in jail.

Bylsma’s suit was previously dismissed by a federal court judge on the grounds that the state’s product liability law does not allow for recovery of mental distress damages caused to a purchaser by a contaminated product in the absence of physical injury.

But the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sought a clarification of the law in a certified question it presented to the state supreme court last month.

Hat tip to How Appealing

Previous:
Lawyer is optimistic about collecting $26B judgment against Syria

Next:
Fired prof's suit against law school is dismissed


We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy. Flag comment for moderator.

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.