According to the Ohio Supreme Court, “boneless wings” may not always be completely bone-free. This clarification followed a lawsuit by Michael Berkheimer, who sued a restaurant after a bone fragment from “boneless wings” he ate in 2016 lodged in his throat, causing serious health issues.
He sued the restaurant for negligence and breach of warranty. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the term “boneless wings” refers to a cooking style rather than guaranteeing the absence of bones, stating it’s common knowledge that chickens have bones.
Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.
Point phone camera here
Despite Berkheimer’s ordeal, the court upheld the lower courts’ decision to dismiss the lawsuit in a narrow 4-3 majority. The dissenting justices argued that the term “boneless” should unequivocally mean without bones.
[KARAH RUCKER]
ACCORDING TO THE OHIO STATE SUPREME COURT,
CUSTOMERS WHO ORDER BONELESS WINGS SHOULD **NOT EXPECT THEM TO BE BONELESS.
THIS WHOLE DEBATE STEMS FROM A CASE BROUGHT ON BY A MAN WHO SAYS HE DEVELOPED MEDICAL PROBLEMS AFTER A TINY BONE FRAGMENT BECAME LODGED IN HIS THROAT, AFTER HE ATE BONELESS WINGS AT A RESTAURANT IN 2016.
HE SUED THE RESTAURANT FOR NEGLIGENCE AND BREACH OF WARRANTY.
BUT THE OHIO JUSTICES RULED THAT BONELESS WINGS **ACTUALLY REFERS TO THE “COOKING STYLE” —
AND IN ITS RULING — SAY IT’S “COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT CHICKENS HAVE BONES.”
MOST POPULAR
-
Michigan State Department
Michigan’s first ‘I Voted’ sticker contest draws inspiration from folklore and more
-
Getty Images
IRS recovers $1.3B in unpaid taxes from high-income Americans
-
Getty Images
NOAA says Vineyard Wind won’t kill sea life, issues permits for it to do just that
-
Reuters
Trump campaign staffers involved in Arlington cemetery altercation identified