LAW 531 WEEK 2

A+ Graded Tutorial Available At: http://hwsoloutions.com/?product=law-531-week-2 Visit Our website: http://hwsoloutions.com/
Product Description
LAW 531 Week 2
Week Two IRAC Brief
Case: Edward J Bylsma v. Burger King Corporation. May 8,
In the outlined case, the plaintiff is trying to sue Burger King Corporation under the Washington Product Liability Act (WPLA). Mr. Bylsma claims ongoing emotional distress after an employee spat on a burger he purchased, but did not eat. The litigation is based on product liability, negligence, and vicarious liability (Bylsma v. Burger King Corp, 2013). According to Repa (1998) “Although supreme Court has not yet recognized federal limitations on state product-liability actions, several lower federal courts justified a federal common-law tort immunity” (p 48). The legal concepts that have been applied are discussed in the discovery of the Issue, Rule of the court, Analysis, and Conclusion reached for this case. Like this case, if these legal concepts are violated with lack of training and inspections by the managerial setting similar issues can be found in all types of businesses. Therefore, according to WPLA Burger King has lost the case due to the legal principles behind the decision which are product liability, negligence, and assault by the employee causing emotional distress. “A tort is a civil wrong for which a remedy may be obtained” (Azria, 2014, p. 1). In the food and hospitality industry tort cases like this can be triggered in everyday situations.
Issue: Has a tort been demonstrated? Is Burger King accountable under WPLA for product liability?
Based on WPLA Burger King owed Bylsma a duty of care by providing safe products. Burger King is liable for any harm caused by things such as manufacture, production, packaging, and if it does not meet specifications. Burger King did not cause harm or