Photo credit: Getty Images.
According to BBC News on Monday, July 29, 2024, Ohio’s highest court has determined that “boneless chicken wings” do not necessarily have to be free of bones.
This decision concludes a legal battle initiated by Michael Berkheimer, who fell ill after swallowing a bone fragment from his boneless chicken wings order.
The controversy started in 2016 when Berkheimer dined at Wings on Brookwood, a restaurant in Hamilton, Ohio. He ordered his usual dish—boneless wings with parmesan garlic sauce.
During the meal, he felt something go down uncomfortably but did not immediately realize the seriousness of the situation. Three days later, experiencing fever and discomfort, he sought medical help. Doctors discovered a long, thin bone lodged in his esophagus, which had caused a tear and subsequent infection.
Berkheimer sued the restaurant, alleging that they failed to inform customers that the boneless wings might still contain bones. His lawsuit also targeted the chicken supplier and the farm, accusing them of negligence. Lower courts dismissed his claims, leading Berkheimer to take his case to the Ohio Supreme Court.
In a closely contested 4-3 decision, the court ruled that the term “boneless wing” should be understood as describing a cooking style rather than a literal guarantee of no bones. Justice Joseph T. Deters, writing for the majority, emphasized that it is common sense to expect that chickens, including their parts used in dishes like boneless wings, might have bones.
He drew a parallel to “chicken fingers,” noting that no one assumes these dishes contain actual fingers, underscoring that “boneless wing” is a culinary term rather than a literal description.
“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,” Justice Deters elaborated.
However, the ruling was not without its dissenters. Justice Michael P. Donnelly vehemently opposed the majority opinion, arguing that the expectation of boneless wings being bone-free is reasonable and that this belief is held by most sensible people, including parents who feed such dishes to their young children.
“The question must be asked: Does anyone really 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,” Justice Donnelly wrote in his dissent.
Justice Donnelly and the other dissenting judges believed that the matter should have been resolved by a jury rather than the court’s justices, suggesting that a broader interpretation of consumer expectations was warranted.
Despite the heated debate, the court’s majority opinion held that consumers should exercise a degree of caution when eating dishes labeled as boneless, understanding that these terms describe cooking methods rather than guaranteeing an absence of bones.
This ruling sets a precedent that may influence similar cases in the future, emphasizing the need for diners to remain cautious and mindful of the culinary language used on menus. For Michael Berkheimer, the decision marks the end of his legal pursuit, but it also sparks ongoing discussions about food labeling, consumer expectations, and restaurant responsibilities.
Leave a Reply