Can boneless wings include bones? High court weighs in
(Photo by Igor Golovniov/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)
A divided Ohio Supreme Court ruled Thursday that consumers should not expect boneless wings to be free of bones.
The 4-3 decision came after a guest of a restaurant filed legal action when he suffered serious medical complications because a bone from a boneless wing got stuck in his throat.
The Associated Press reported that Michael Berkheimer was dining with his wife and friends at a wing joint in Hamilton, Ohio, when he ordered his usual: boneless wings with Parmesan garlic sauce.
As Berkheimer was eating, he felt a bite-size piece of meat go down the wrong way.
CHICK-FIL-A SET TO SWITCH FROM ANTIBIOTIC-FREE CHICKEN
Three days later, Berkheimer was feverish and unable to keep food down, so he went to the emergency room. While there, a doctor discovered a long, thin bone that had torn his esophagus and caused an infection.
Berkheimer sued the restaurant, Wings on Brookwood, claiming the restaurant failed to warn him that "boneless wings" could contain bones, despite the understanding the items are nuggets of chicken meat free of bones, or "boneless."
Berkheimer’s lawsuit named the wing supplier as well as the farm that produced the chicken, accusing them of being negligent.
In the court’s decision on Thursday, it said that "boneless wings" refers to a cooking style, and Berkheimer should have been on guard against bones, since it is common knowledge that chickens have bones.
Lower courts had dismissed Berkheimer’s suit, and the latest decision from the high court sides with the previous decisions.
CHIPOTLE CEO ADDRESSES BURRITO BOWL PORTION SIZES AFTER BACKLASH
"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 Joseph T. Deters wrote for the majority.
The judges that sided with Berkheimer, though, called Deters’ reasoning "utter jabberwocky," saying a jury should have been allowed to decide whether the restaurant was negligent.
"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," 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."
The Associated Press contributed to this report. Read more of this story from FOX News.