If a bad burger isn’t eaten, is it still a liability?

That’s the question posed by a Washington state man who says he was served a burger with spit on it at a local Burger King where he frequented. According to the U.S. Ninth Court of Appeals, he can.

Ed Bylsma, a 51-year-old sheriff’s deputy, filed suit for emotional damages back in 2009 when he found  saliva on his burger, although he did not eat it. According to court documents, Bylsma ordered a Whopper through the drive-thru window after 1 a.m. However, Bylsma felt “uneasy” after receiving the sandwich and examined it, only to find what he called a “slimy, clear and white phlegm glob” left there by one of the employees.

After discovering what had been done to the burger, Bylsma called for backup in order to look into the matter. Regardless, the deputy says he suffered long-lasting effects from the incident.

“Bylsma claims that he now suffers ongoing emotional trauma from the incident, including vomiting, nausea, food anxiety and sleeplessness, and has sought treatment by a mental health professional,” according to case records.

Investigations into the case found that there were two Burger King employees present at the time of the incident, both of whom have criminal records. After DNA tests were performed on the saliva, it was revealed that the saliva did indeed belong to one of the two employees.

Initially, the court ruled against Bylsma on the basis that the Washington Product Liability Act did not refer to incidents in which the customer did not consume the food. However, the Washington State Supreme Court overturned the ruling, stating that simply being disgusted by the food was enough to cause distress.

Unconventional rulings such as these can occur anywhere and in any industry. It’s recommended that local small businesses seek out Phoenix business attorneys to ensure that they’re rightfully protected in the courts.

Categorised in: Uncategorized

This post was written by