What the cluck?
While its name suggests otherwise, boneless chicken wings can have bones in them, Ohio’s Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
The state’s highest court made the divisive 4-3 decision against a restaurant patron who suffered serious medical complications after swallowing bones from an order of what he thought was cartilage-free poultry.
Michael Berkheimer sued the restaurant, Wings on Brookwood, saying the restaurant failed to warn him that so-called “boneless wings” could contain bones after a long, thin chicken bone had torn his esophagus and caused an infection. AP
Berkheimer was eating boneless wings with parmesan garlic sauce, and felt a bite-size piece of meat go down the wrong way, leading to him to feeling feverish and unable to keep food down three days later. Shutterstock / Brent Hofacker“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,” Justice Joseph T. Deters wrote for the majority.
The ruling stemmed from a 2016 incident in which Michael Berkheimer fell ill after eating boneless wings with parmesan garlic sauce from his favorite chicken shop, Wings on Brookwood in Hamilton.
He went to the emergency room, where a doctor discovered a long, thin bone trapped in his esophagus and an infected tear from the sharp fragment.
Berkheimer sued Wings on Brookwood, saying the restaurant failed to warn him that the boneless wings could in fact contain bones.
The Ohio Supreme Court sided with lower courts that dismissed Berkheimer’s suit, stating that “boneless wings” refers to a cooking style and that the patron should’ve been on guard against bones since it’s common knowledge that chickens have bones.
Ohio Supreme Court rejected Berkheimer’s claims in a 4-3 ruling, saying the term “boneless” refers to the cooking style only. Getty ImagesThree dissenting justices, however, called Deters’ reasoning “utter jabberwocky,” saying the case should have been taken to a jury.
“The question must be asked: 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? Of course they don’t,” Justice Michael P. Donnelly wrote in dissent.
“When they read the word ‘boneless,’ they think that it means ‘without bones,’ as do all sensible people.”
With Post Wires
