The Ohio Supreme Court recently ruled that the term “boneless wings” refers to the cooking style rather than guaranteeing the absence of bones. This decision came in response to a lawsuit filed by Michael Berkheimer, who suffered medical complications after consuming a bone in a dish labeled as “boneless wings” at Wings on Brookwood in Hamilton, Ohio.
Berkheimer’s legal complaint argued that the restaurant and its suppliers were negligent for not warning customers about the potential presence of bones. However, the court, in a 4-3 decision, upheld the dismissal of the lawsuit, stating that it is common knowledge that chicken can contain bones, even in dishes advertised as “boneless.”
Justice Joseph T. Deters, writing for the majority, emphasized that the term “boneless wings” does not promise a complete absence of bones, likening it to terms like “chicken fingers,” which do not literally mean fingerless chicken. The dissenting justices, however, argued that consumers are reasonable to expect boneless dishes to be free of bones, and believed a jury should have decided the matter.
This ruling has sparked debate over whether food labeling can be misleading and what expectations consumers should have when ordering items described as “boneless.” I wonder what may be next in the drive to scam the public of the facts and truth about products.
Key Points:
- The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that “boneless wings” describe a cooking style, not a bone-free guarantee.
- The decision followed a lawsuit from Michael Berkheimer, who found a bone in “boneless wings.”
- The court’s 4-3 decision stated that consumers should anticipate potential bones in chicken dishes.
- Justices were divided on whether the term “boneless” might mislead consumers.
- The ruling emphasizes the importance of consumer awareness in food labeling.
Fallon Jacobson – Reprinted with permission of Whatfinger News