In a recent ruling, the Ohio Supreme Court determined that patrons ordering “boneless” chicken wings should not expect the food to be entirely free of bones. This decision stems from the case of Michael Berkheimer, who, in 2016, encountered a significant health issue after consuming boneless wings at Wings on Brookwood, an Ohio restaurant.

Incident Leads to Legal Battle

Berkheimer was enjoying his usual order of boneless wings with parmesan garlic sauce when he accidentally swallowed a piece of chicken bone. The bone, measuring 5 centimeters, became lodged in his esophagus, leading to a bacterial infection and ongoing medical issues, including breathing difficulties. The restaurant’s menu did not warn customers about the possibility of bones in the boneless wings, prompting Berkheimer to sue for negligence and breach of warranty, among other claims.

Court’s Interpretation of ‘Boneless’

The Ohio Supreme Court’s 4-3 decision concluded that the term “boneless” refers to a cooking style rather than a guarantee of the absence of bones. Justice Joseph T. Deters, writing for the majority, 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 majority opinion argued that it is common knowledge chickens have bones, and thus, Berkheimer should have been aware of the potential for bones in his food. This ruling upheld the decisions of lower courts that had previously dismissed Berkheimer’s suit.

Dissenting Opinions on Consumer Expectations

The dissenting judges criticized the majority’s reasoning, describing it as “utter jabberwocky,” a reference to Lewis Carroll’s nonsensical poem. Justice Michael P. Donnelly, in his dissent, argued that a jury, rather than the justices, should have determined whether the restaurant was negligent. He contended, “Jurors likely have eaten boneless wings, some will have fed boneless wings to their children, and jurors have common sense. They will be able to determine, better than any court, what a consumer reasonably expects when ordering boneless wings.”

Donnelly emphasized that when people see the term “boneless,” they reasonably expect the food to be free of bones. He highlighted the expectations of parents who serve boneless wings, tenders, nuggets, or fingers to their children, asserting that no sensible person anticipates bones in such items. The ruling underscores a broader debate about consumer expectations and labeling practices in the food industry. While the court sided with the interpretation that “boneless” signifies a style of preparation, the dissenting opinion reflects a contrasting view that consumer assumptions about food labels should be straightforward and unambiguous.