An Ohio top court has ruled that boneless chicken wings can have bones, dismissing a lawsuit filed by a man who fell ill after consuming a piece of bone from his order.
Earlier this week, the court clarified that “boneless wings” refers to a cooking style and should not be interpreted literally.
In 2016, Michael Berkheimer visited a restaurant in Hamilton, Ohio, with his wife and friends, where he ordered his usual: boneless wings with parmesan garlic sauce, the BBC reported. He noticed a piece go down uncomfortably.
Three days later, he began to feel feverish and went to the emergency room. Doctors discovered a long, thin bone that caused a tear in his oesophagus and subsequent infection.
This led to Berkheimer filing a lawsuit and accusing the restaurant of failing to warn him that the “boneless wings” might contain bones.
He also accused the supplier and the farm that produced the chicken of negligence. Lower courts dismissed Berkheimer’s suit, which landed in the state’s supreme court.
The top court’s 4-3 decision emphasized that it is common sense to exercise caution for the potential presence of bones in boneless wings.
Writing for the majority, Justice Joseph T. Deters said: “A diner reading ‘boneless wings’ on a menu would no more believe that the restaurant was warranting the absence of bones in the items than believe that the items were made from chicken wings, just as a person eating ‘chicken fingers’ would know that he had not been served fingers.”
However, the dissenting justices felt the decision should have sat with a jury and not with the court’s justices.
Justice Michael P. Donnelly wrote in dissent: “The question must be asked: Does anyone believe that the parents in this country who feed their young children boneless wings or chicken tenders or chicken nuggets or chicken fingers expect bones to be in the chicken? Of course, they don’t. When they read the word ‘boneless,’ they think that it means ‘without bones,’ as do all sensible people.”
The ruling has sparked a debate on consumer expectations and the importance of clear labelling, raising questions about the responsibilities of restaurants and food suppliers in ensuring customer safety.
