The Ohio Supreme Court says consumers can't expect boneless chicken wings to actually be free of bones.

Consumers cannot expect boneless chicken wings to actually be free of bones, a divided Ohio Supreme Court ruled Thursday, rejecting claims by a restaurant patron who suffered serious medical complications from getting a bone stuck in his throat.

Michael Berkheimer was dining with his wife and friends at a wing joint in Hamilton, Ohio, and had ordered the usual — boneless wings with parmesan garlic sauce — when he felt a bite-size piece of meat go down the wrong way. Three days later, feverish and unable to keep food down, Berkeimer went to the emergency room, where a doctor discovered a long, thin bone that had torn his esophagus and caused an infection.

…

In a 4-3 ruling, the Supreme Court said Thursday that “boneless wings” refers to a cooking style, and that Berkheimer should’ve been on guard against bones since it’s common knowledge that chickens have bones. The high court sided with lower courts that had dismissed Berkheimer’s suit.

  • @Freefall
    9•2 months ago

    That’s a pretty ignorant take. "thing"less means without “thing”. Boneless means without bones. Without means there isn’t ANY in something.

    THEIR process, which is not the customer’s problem to solve, should guarantee there are no bones left in any product labeled “boneless”, because that is how words and companies work…

    You cost statement is irrelevant. It’s capitalism, baby! You make boneless stuff as advertised and set the price at what the market will accept. If your company can’t make “BONELESS” wings, then you don’t get to sell them until you figure out a cost effective way of doing it. Use a different word that isn’t a complete lie.

    Judges can be bought and make stupid calls that only morons support…see also SCOTUS.