Whopper Spit Case: Policeman Edward Bylsma Brings Suit To Wash. State Supreme Court

Over the past few years, the Washington State Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Barbara A. Madsen, has heard cases involving meth addicts, stolen BMWs, coffee shop burglaries and taxes on cable TV. But if it agrees to hear the case of Edward Bylsma v. Burger King, as the Seattle Post-Intelligence reports the the Ninth Circuit of Appeals to have recommended, it will likely confront the first case in its 123-year history in which the principle material agents are a hamburger and a wad of human spit.

The case in question dates back to March 2009, when Bylsma, a deputy sheriff in Clark County, stopped for lunch at a Burger King in Vancouver, Wash.. He ordered a Whopper. But when he got his burger, he started to feel "uneasy;" his gut said something was wrong. He peeled back the burger's bun to make sure everything was OK -- and saw a huge, white glob of spit sitting on top of the patty.

Deputy Bylsma felt ill all day; he claims that he even vomited on account of his emotional distress. He sent the burger away for DNA testing to try and trace the spit back to an individual person. When the results linked the loogie to Burger King employee Gary Herb, Bylsma moved to sue Burger King. He said that he became unable to eat food from restaurants and lived in fear of contracting a foodborne illness.

He's been pursuing the suit ever since, without much success. But today's Seattle Post-Intelligencer article explains that the Ninth Circuit could not determine whether "emotional distress" alone can constitute grounds for a liability suit under Washington state law. The Ninth Circuit asked the Supreme Court to clarify the issue.

On its own, then, Edward Bylsma v. Burger King may sound humble. But an entire host of potential future Mealbreaker cases could rest on its shoulders, not to mention lawsuits far from the realm of fast food. And the Court's precedent could well influence decisions outside Washington's borders. The state's Supreme Court is second only to California's in the number of its rulings that are followed elsewhere.

Comments

[suki21693]

06:21 PM on 03/08/2013

"He sent the burger away for DNA testing to try and trace the spit back to an individual person."
I want to know if the sheriff's deputy used taxpayer dollars for this nonsense. There is probably more to this. I really doubt this was just a random case of spitting. Prior relationship or instigation on the spot?

[milles manson]

02:40 PM on 01/22/2013

Does The DNA from The Saliva Match that of any of the employees??????

[Niki Cook]

10:30 AM on 01/20/2013

I hope he wins that lawsuit. Seriously, that just ain't right!

[theresa mcquiston]

12:28 AM on 12/23/2012

You tell that Judge that not only am a sure he must have suffered emotional distress, I have suffered emotional distress just by reading that article and imagining what happened to this guy! It is dispicable. I live within walking distance from that Burger King but I have not, nor will not buy a whopper ever again. How can I? It will always be in my mind.

[Teresa Lowery]

12:19 PM on 12/21/2012

This is disgusting! We got whoppers the other day from our Burger King and I was immediately on the phone to the manager. The lettuce was brown, the tomatoes looked like they had sat out for two days.....I have been sick from eating here before and this was the last straw. I am straying away from fast food. If someone wouldn't eat it theirselves, don't feed it to me and my family!!!

[dbacks98]

06:56 PM on 10/01/2012

IT WAS SLIM SHADY!!!!!

[Boo2You2]

11:09 PM on 06/16/2012

If I was a cop, I'd be very careful about where I eat. I imagine that a lot of this kind of stuff goes on. It would probably be safer to go somewhere that no one knows you're a cop.

[Shiggity]

03:13 AM on 03/02/2012

people who pull this sort of thing deserve to be shot

[NotThisAgain]

01:19 AM on 11/11/2012

Your mind is as bland as their meat.

[uacrack]

11:34 PM on 03/01/2012

if a cop is scared of people spitting in his food and vomited and unable to perform bc of emotional distress, i think he needs to be fired!

[coptrnr1]

12:29 AM on 07/30/2012

I supposed you would not be repulsed to bite into someone else's spitball? Cops are human too and everyone gets repulsed by something. I guess you eat roaches, rats and bird droppings for snacks huh? You have no idea the number of diseases that this officer could have been exposed to by the employee who thoiught he was being funny.

[merrh]

10:46 AM on 09/29/2012

fired no, certainly not. it stinks that he has to be "over reacting" to have a customer and employee take responsibility for being completely disgusting. laws are not always easy to navigate, sometimes looking like a sap is the only way for the law to convict properly.

also, did this employee have any diseases? that would freak me out even if most cannot be transmitted via saliva

[grahampie]

07:47 AM on 11/12/2012

seriously this guy is such a crybaby he swallows plenty of his own saliva every day

[theresa mcquiston]

12:30 AM on 12/23/2012

You are stupid.

[Cygnus1]

09:54 PM on 01/18/2012

I used to work with kids like that. Spoiled brats who think they're being edgy and sticking it to The Man, who've never missed a meal and had mommy and daddy bankroll everything. They never lasted long, and always acted shocked when they got handed a pink slip.

[grahampie]

07:48 AM on 11/12/2012

the ones to worry about are the ones with true chips on their shoulders and bad experiences to motivate them against cops

[Bushisgone]

06:33 PM on 01/16/2012

the real question is

would the whopper taste better with spit in it

Thats the real question

[realwoman8]

04:28 PM on 01/13/2012

My last comment was in regard to the 10 most disgusting meals video, not to the burger case, but yeah, that was pretty gross too! :-P

[realwoman8]

04:27 PM on 01/13/2012

Glad I'm a vegetarian. "I would love to try your fried cockroaches, but gosh darn it, I'm a vegetarian..." Gets you out of a lot of uncomfortable social spots! haha

[tom841]

02:07 PM on 01/13/2012

This a a response to two comments to my earlier comment. P-R-I-N-C-I-P-L-E refes to a tenet or an ideal. P-R-I-N-C-I-P-A-L means major or the head of a school. This story is wrong because of poor editing. Look it up in any dictionary.

[Hollywood053]

01:46 PM on 01/13/2012

I would like to know why the case was pending without 'much success'? People win law suits over much more stupid things than that. The man has actual proof with the kids DNA, Why all the problems pushing this suit thru? Maybe someone out there with some legal smarts can tell me?

[thaneb]

11:25 AM on 01/17/2012

In many states one cannot sue for the damage of emotional distress alone. There also must be some objective, even minor, physical damage (e.g. bruising). Once some physical damage is found, an award for emotional distress can be added in those states. The reason for this is the ease of "faking" emotional distress and the difficulty/impossibility of objectively assessing it.

[Hollywood053]

12:50 PM on 01/17/2012

Thank you very much for the info. That makes a lot of sense. I would think it would be easy to fake emotional stress. It really baffles me when I hear something like this happening,I just can't believe that some kid would do that and then wrap up the burger and serve it. Can you imagine if the man didn't look at the sandwich and ate it. It makes me sick.