The Ohio Supreme Court recently made a controversial ruling regarding the presence of bones in ‘boneless’ chicken wings. The court ruled that consumers cannot expect boneless chicken wings to be completely free of bones, even though they are advertised as such. This decision came after a patron of a wing joint in Hamilton, Ohio, suffered serious medical complications from a bone in his boneless wings.
Michael Berkheimer was dining with his wife and friends when he ordered the usual boneless wings with parmesan garlic sauce. Unfortunately, he ended up with a bone stuck in his throat, leading to an infection and a visit to the emergency room. Berkheimer sued the restaurant, Wings on Brookwood, as well as the supplier and farm that produced the chicken, claiming negligence.
The Supreme Court, in a close 4-3 ruling, determined that the term ‘boneless wings’ refers to a cooking style rather than the absence of bones. The majority opinion stated that it is common knowledge that chickens have bones, and consumers should be aware of this fact. Justice Joseph T. Deters wrote, “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.”
However, the dissenting justices disagreed with this reasoning, calling it “utter jabberwocky.” They argued that consumers, especially parents feeding young children, expect boneless chicken products to be truly boneless. Justice Michael P. Donnelly wrote in dissent, “When they read the word ‘boneless,’ they think that it means ‘without bones,’ as do all sensible people.”
Ultimately, the Ohio Supreme Court’s ruling sets a precedent for how boneless chicken wings are perceived and marketed to consumers. It raises questions about the expectations consumers should have when ordering boneless chicken products and the responsibility of restaurants and suppliers in ensuring boneless truly means boneless.