In a ruling that has foodies and legal experts alike scratching their heads, the Ohio Supreme Court recently decided that “boneless wings” might not be entirely boneless after all. In a gripping 4-3 decision, the court declared that consumers should not expect these popular menu items to be free of bones. This verdict comes in the wake of a bizarre case where Michael Berkheimer, an unsuspecting diner, choked on a bone hidden within his so-called boneless wing.
Diners Beware of Hidden Bones in ‘Boneless’ Wings
Imagine sitting down at your favorite wing joint, ready to savor some boneless wings drenched in Parmesan garlic sauce, only to end up with a trip to the ER instead of a belly full of deliciousness. That’s exactly what happened to Berkheimer during a casual night out with his wife and friends in Hamilton, Ohio. As he enjoyed his meal, a rogue bone made its way into his esophagus, causing severe damage and leading to a nasty infection. Fast forward a few days, and Berkheimer found himself feverish, unable to keep food down, and seeking emergency medical care.
From Dinner to Lawsuit
Convinced that his ordeal was due to negligence, Berkheimer decided to sue the restaurant, Wings on Brookwood. His lawsuit accused not just the restaurant but also the wing supplier and the farm that produced the chicken, claiming they failed to warn him about the potential presence of bones in “boneless” wings. However, both lower courts and the Ohio Supreme Court ultimately sided against him.
Justice Joseph T. Deters, writing for the majority, argued that the term “boneless wings” refers more to a style of cooking than a literal absence of bones. He compared it to the term “chicken fingers,” suggesting that no one actually 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 be on guard.
But not everyone on the bench agreed with this reasoning. Justice Michael P. Donnelly’s dissent took a more consumer-friendly approach, calling Deters’ arguments “utter jabberwocky.” He contended that when people read the word “boneless,” they reasonably expect there to be no bones. Donnelly stressed that parents, in particular, rely on such labels to ensure the safety of the food they serve their children.
Should Restaurants Warn Consumers About Potential Food Hazards?
The case has sparked a broader debate about food labeling and consumer expectations. Should restaurants be required to warn patrons about potential hazards even in seemingly straightforward items? Or should consumers exercise more caution, knowing that food, by its very nature, can sometimes harbor unexpected surprises?
As we digest this legal ruling, one thing is clear: the next time you order “boneless” wings, keep an eye out for any sneaky bones that might be lurking.
Leave a Comment