Surprising Supreme Court Decision Impacts Boneless Wings Enthusiasts

Ohio Supreme Court’s Boneless Wing Ruling: A Puzzling Decision

In an unusual ruling that has left both culinary enthusiasts and legal pundits perplexed, the Ohio Supreme Court recently determined that “boneless wings” may not be entirely devoid of bones. The court delivered a closely contested 4-3 decision stating that consumers should not anticipate these popular menu items to be completely bone-free. This judgment follows an odd case where Michael Berkheimer, an unsuspecting diner, choked on a hidden bone in his supposedly boneless wing.

Diners Beware of Hidden Bones in ‘Boneless’ Wings

Picture yourself at your preferred wing spot, eagerly awaiting some boneless wings smothered in Parmesan garlic sauce, only to find yourself rushing to the emergency room instead of relishing your meal. That’s precisely the unfortunate incident that befell Berkheimer during a casual evening out with his wife and friends in Hamilton, Ohio. As he savored his dinner, an unexpected bone lodged itself into his esophagus, causing significant damage and leading to a severe infection. Within days, Berkheimer was feverish, unable to consume food and seeking urgent medical attention.

From Dinner to Lawsuit

Berkheimer believed his ordeal was due to negligence and consequently decided to take legal action against the restaurant – Wings on Brookwood. His lawsuit implicated not just the eatery but also the wing supplier and the farm responsible for raising the chicken. He claimed they failed to caution him about the potential presence of bones in “boneless” wings. However, both lower courts and ultimately the Ohio Supreme Court ruled against him.

Justice Joseph T. Deters penned down for the majority arguing that “boneless wings” refer more towards a cooking style than an actual absence of bones. Drawing parallels with “chicken fingers,” he suggested that no one genuinely expects to be served real fingers when ordering them. According to Deters, it’s common knowledge that chickens have bones, and thus diners should always remain vigilant.

However, not everyone on the bench concurred with this logic. Justice Michael P. Donnelly dissented with a more consumer-friendly perspective, labeling Deter’s arguments as “utter jabberwocky.” He argued that when consumers see the word “boneless,” they reasonably expect there to be no bones. Donnelly emphasized that parents particularly depend on such labels to ensure the food they serve their children is safe.

Should Restaurants Warn Consumers About Potential Food Hazards?

This case has ignited a wider debate about food labeling and consumer expectations. Should restaurants be obliged to alert patrons about potential hazards even in seemingly innocuous items? Or should consumers exercise greater caution, acknowledging that food can sometimes contain unexpected surprises?

In light of this legal ruling, one thing is certain: the next time you order “boneless” wings, you might want to keep an eye out for any hidden bones.

More Reading

Post navigation

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

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