LAW 531 Week 2


Read “The IRAC method of case study analysis.”


Select one legal case from a current event that has taken place within the past 2 years relevant to this week’s objectives.


Discuss the selected case with your Learning Team.


Brief the selected case as a Learning Team.


Write a case brief using the IRAC method.


Write an explanation of no more than 750 words about how the legal concepts in the selected case can be applied within a business managerial setting.


Click the Assignment Files tab to submit your assignment.


2 Team Charter

As a team it is important to outline goals, procedures and deadlines

before work is started. The team environment at UOP is often held to

disdain by the students. However in the real workforce, it is often the

way companies assign employees to complete large projects and

assignments. Many companies hire UOP graduates because of the

experience with teamwork the students gain. But, like the real work

force and the real world, I believe that teams work together. You are

not required to meet in person. Teamwork however means that your

final product is a team effort. I highly discourage you from “assigning

parts.” You should use whatever mode possible to work “together” for a

single product.


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 injury because the burger was not consumed (Bylsma v. Burger King Corp, 2013).
Burger King’s employee also owed a duty of care to Bylsma; however, they failed to act reasonable and breached his or her duty of care by spitting in Bylsma’s food (Bylsma v. Burger King Corp, 2013). Tort has been demonstrated in this case, the employee was


There are no reviews yet.

Be the first to review “LAW 531 Week 2”

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *