The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that a man who nearly died after choking on a bone in his "boneless wings" should have expected bones to be in them. A state legislator is so outraged that he plans to change state law.
I think this is a good decision, and you always have to chew food for it to be safe, boneless or otherwise. There is no processing method (human or machine) that can reliably remove every bone or bone fragment, so the practical effect of the opposite outcome will be restaurants putting disclaimers that boneless products might contain bone.
It will be no safer for consumers, and basically no different for restaurants, except this specific restaurant will be badly hurt by being the first one to have a customer incur significant medical expenses from this problem. It will just be the raw/undercooked warning part 2, and we will slowly work our way to a page of disclaimers in every menu.
Yeah, no. It’s clear you didn’t look at the actual situation. The bone in question was almost an inch and a half long.
This wasn’t a small piece of bone, like a sliver or splinter or fragment like they keep wanting to refer to it. This was straight up just a bone the manufacturer didn’t remove. This is clear negligence regardless of what one bullshit judge says.
Tiny pieces of bone will get through manufacturing. This isn’t that despite what they want to say. That characterization is bullshit on the level of the McDonald’s hot coffee propaganda.
I agree with the overall idea, but this wasn’t one judge it was the majority (4-3).
Even when all parties do the best we can reasonably expect on occasion a bone will slip through. But when that happens and someone suffers injury because of it they deserve restitution if they specifically ordered a boneless product.
The court didn’t look at the breach of warranty claim. Which was probably the best argument in this case.
You again seem to be ignoring the fact it wasn’t really a bone fragment. It was an inch and a half long bone piece. There are entire bone-in wings that size. That’s not something anyone would expect in a boneless wing.
Is there a reason you seem to be intentionally ignoring that detail?
There’s a lot of space between a food that’s dangerous to touch, and foods that require effort to eat safely.
A warning that the coffee is hot isn’t enough to meaningfully disclose that the coffee will do severe damage if you touch it, while a disclaimer that boneless wings may contain bone fragments does enough to disclose that there may be bone fragments. Lots of other foods have bones and bone fragments, and are eaten in near perfect safety very frequently. There are no other foods routinely served so hot that they will cause burns, specifically because they are always unsafe.
I think this is a good decision, and you always have to chew food for it to be safe, boneless or otherwise. There is no processing method (human or machine) that can reliably remove every bone or bone fragment, so the practical effect of the opposite outcome will be restaurants putting disclaimers that boneless products might contain bone.
It will be no safer for consumers, and basically no different for restaurants, except this specific restaurant will be badly hurt by being the first one to have a customer incur significant medical expenses from this problem. It will just be the raw/undercooked warning part 2, and we will slowly work our way to a page of disclaimers in every menu.
Yeah, no. It’s clear you didn’t look at the actual situation. The bone in question was almost an inch and a half long.
This wasn’t a small piece of bone, like a sliver or splinter or fragment like they keep wanting to refer to it. This was straight up just a bone the manufacturer didn’t remove. This is clear negligence regardless of what one bullshit judge says.
Tiny pieces of bone will get through manufacturing. This isn’t that despite what they want to say. That characterization is bullshit on the level of the McDonald’s hot coffee propaganda.
I agree with the overall idea, but this wasn’t one judge it was the majority (4-3).
Even when all parties do the best we can reasonably expect on occasion a bone will slip through. But when that happens and someone suffers injury because of it they deserve restitution if they specifically ordered a boneless product.
The court didn’t look at the breach of warranty claim. Which was probably the best argument in this case.
You again seem to be ignoring the fact it wasn’t really a bone fragment. It was an inch and a half long bone piece. There are entire bone-in wings that size. That’s not something anyone would expect in a boneless wing.
Is there a reason you seem to be intentionally ignoring that detail?
Again? This is the first I’ve replied to you. I think you misunderstood my position.
My only issue was with you claiming it was one judge not four.
There’s a lot of space between a food that’s dangerous to touch, and foods that require effort to eat safely.
A warning that the coffee is hot isn’t enough to meaningfully disclose that the coffee will do severe damage if you touch it, while a disclaimer that boneless wings may contain bone fragments does enough to disclose that there may be bone fragments. Lots of other foods have bones and bone fragments, and are eaten in near perfect safety very frequently. There are no other foods routinely served so hot that they will cause burns, specifically because they are always unsafe.