Consumers should not be surprised if boneless chicken wings really contain bones, according to a July 25th Ohio Supreme Court ruling.
Michael Berkheimer filed a lawsuit against a local wing eatery in Hamilton, Ohio, because the boneless wings he received contained a bone.
The decision was the result of a 2016 incident in which Michael Berkheimer consumed boneless wings and became ill, which required him to go to a hospital. The emergency room physician identified an infected laceration and a thin bone that was lodged in Berkheimer’s esophagus. The slender bone, measuring one and three-eighths inches, caused him to undergo two surgical procedures. Berkheimer filed a lawsuit against Wings on Brookwood, alleging that the restaurant neglected to inform that the boneless wings could, in fact, contain bones.
Berkheimer claimed negligence in the lawsuit, which also named the supplier and the farm that produced the poultry.
The Ohio Supreme Court ruled in a 4-3 decision against Berkheimer, explaining that boneless wings are a culinary style, and he should have been more circumspect, as it is widely recognized that chickens have bones.
In his ruling, Justice Joseph T. Deters stated that a consumer who sees the term “boneless wings” would not interpret it as the restaurant trying to explain the lack of bones in the dish, nor would they infer that the dish is created from actual chicken wings. Likewise, those consuming “chicken fingers” would be aware that they were not being served actual fingers.
The dissenting judges called Deters’ view illogical. Justice Michael P. Donnelly’s dissenting opinion stated that when customers read the word “boneless,” they understand it to imply without bones. The three judges also said that a jury should have decided whether the local restaurant in Ohio was responsible for serving chicken that had a bone, although it had been advertised as boneless.