In a decision issued Thursday, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the term “boneless” in chicken wings does not guarantee that the wings are entirely bone-free. This ruling concludes a lawsuit involving a man who experienced medical issues after a chicken bone became lodged in his throat while consuming a boneless wing.
The court’s opinion detailed that Michael Berkheimer had sued a restaurant, its food supplier, and a chicken farm after the incident. He claimed serious health problems arose from the bone found in his boneless wing.
The court’s ruling emphasized that there was “no breach of a duty when the consumer could have reasonably expected and guarded against the presence of the injurious substance in the food, and what the consumer could have reasonably expected is informed by the determination whether the injurious substance in the food is foreign to or natural to the food.”
The Ohio high court clarified that the label “boneless wings” is understood as describing a cooking style rather than guaranteeing the absence of bones. The decision stated, “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.”
“The food item’s label on the menu described a cooking style; it was not a guarantee,” the ruling said.
Despite the ruling, three of the seven justices dissented, arguing that it is reasonable for consumers, especially parents feeding children, to expect that “boneless” means “without bones.”
“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?” the justices stated.
