Chicken wings advertised as 'boneless' can have bones, Ohio Supreme Court decides

[The Sum of Awe]

Chicken wings advertised as 'boneless' can have bones, Ohio Supreme Court decides

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

apnews.com

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.

Berkheimer sued the restaurant, Wings on Brookwood, saying the restaurant failed to warn him that so-called “boneless wings” — which are, of course, nuggets of boneless, skinless breast meat — could contain bones. The suit also named the supplier and the farm that produced the chicken, claiming all were negligent.

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.

“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 dissenting justices called Deters’ reasoning “utter jabberwocky,” and said a jury should’ve been allowed to decide whether the restaurant was negligent in serving Berkheimer a piece of chicken that was advertised as boneless.

“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.”

 

[Quintessence]

It's also common knowledge that "boneless" means without bones. For flips sake.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In some ways I did not have a lot of compassion for an adult that ate "boneless chicken wings" so fast the he choked on a bone. But as pointed out children are at risk to when food is improperly prepared and served. I could see a mother with a young child that did not know better and choked on a favorite food when it had an unexpected impurity. The court may have screwed up this time.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's also common knowledge that "boneless" means without bones. For flips sake.

It's similar to pitted olives.
Not every single one is without a pit.
Common knowledge.

And 2x4 lumber is actually 1.5" x 3.5".
Common knowledge.

 

[anotherneil]

If they advertise something as being boneless, and there are any bones, then what's advertised is not being provided. Some might consider this to be false advertising. Personally I wouldn't call it false advertising for isolated situation; I would still consider it to be analogous to something failing before its warranty expires and subject to compensation, which is what this is about, though. It's called liability & it's why insurance companies exist.

If it was beyond an isolated incident and many of these pieces of "boneless chicken" had pieces of bone in them, then I'd definitely call this false advertising.

What I think I would do, rather than call them "boneless chicken", is to refer to them as "de-boned chicken" & that way there's some slack for isolated cases of pieces of chicken that still have pieces of bone in them. If I were to see the description as "de-boned chicken", then I'd be able to understand that bones were removed & there might be rare, isolated pieces that are missed. To me, "boneless chicken" sounds more like a guarantee that there aren't any bones present in the chicken.

 

[Revoltingest]

If they advertise something as being boneless, and there are any bones, then what's advertised is not being provided.

It's unwise to take advertising puffery literally.
Especially to rely upon such when there's danger.
Let's not demand that government make advertising
copy read like legal disclaimers, ie, make the solution
worse than the problem.

Caution:
Disney is not the "happiest place on Earth".
Don't go there expecting that, be disappointed,
& sue for damages.

 

[anotherneil]

It's unwise to take advertising puffery literally.
Especially to rely upon such when there's danger.

Perhaps, but it's the vendor's burden and liability if don't explain that it's just puffery not meant to be taken literally.

In a free market society, no one is forcing anyone to sell anything, so if they freely choose to provide a good or service and to make claims about it but fail to deliver, then that's on them, not me.

Let's not demand that government make advertising
copy read like legal disclaimers, eh.

No - let's do so; I'm opposed to such liability-less anarchism.

 

[Revoltingest]

Perhaps, but it's the vendor's burden and liability if don't explain that it's just puffery not meant to be taken literally.

With a warranty that no bone every
would be in the wings? That's expecting
too much.

In a free market society, no one is forcing anyone to sell anything, so if they freely choose to provide a good or service and to make claims about it but fail to deliver, then that's on them, not me.


No - let's do so; I'm opposed to such liability-less anarchism.

Would you sue because your 2x4 is 1.5" x 3.5"?

 

[Tomef]

Chicken wings advertised as 'boneless' can have bones, Ohio Supreme Court decides

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

apnews.com

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.

Berkheimer sued the restaurant, Wings on Brookwood, saying the restaurant failed to warn him that so-called “boneless wings” — which are, of course, nuggets of boneless, skinless breast meat — could contain bones. The suit also named the supplier and the farm that produced the chicken, claiming all were negligent.

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.

“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 dissenting justices called Deters’ reasoning “utter jabberwocky,” and said a jury should’ve been allowed to decide whether the restaurant was negligent in serving Berkheimer a piece of chicken that was advertised as boneless.

“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.”

Spineless politicians can advertise themselves as ‘with spine’ too.

 

[anotherneil]

With a warranty that no bone every
would be in the wings? That's expecting
too much.

Then don't get into the chicken bidness; again - in a free market society, no one is forcing anyone to sell anything, so if they freely choose to provide a good or service and to make claims about it but fail to deliver, then that's on them, not me.

Would you sue because your 2x4 is 1.5" x 3.5"?

Nope, just like I wouldn't sue because 5280 feet = 1 mile; plus, 2x4 doesn't specify what units.

 

[Eddi]

I have next to zero sympathy for those who do not properly chew their food before swallowing it down

Chewing your food is not advanced behavior and is hardly refined behavior

Serves you right if you choke on your food due to gulping down your meal as a walrus shallows a fish in a zoo

 

[Quintessence]

I have next to zero sympathy for those who do not properly chew their food before swallowing it down

Chewing your food is not advanced behavior and is hardly refined behavior

Serves you right if you choke on your food due to gulping down your meal as a walrus shallows a fish in a zoo

Blaming the victim is ... a choice you just made there. We'll just ignore that folks can have medical issues that impact this situation, or that routine behaviors go on autopilot and can be accident prone, or that literally everyone has had food/drink go down the wrong tube sometimes, anything else like that. And we'll definitely ignore the predatory health care industry in the USA that makes situations like this significantly more of a burden for anyone facing them.

 

[Eddi]

Blaming the victim is ... a choice you just made there.

Gluttony is a lifestyle choice and the many potential hazards are common knowledge

I am sick and tired of victim culture

Being a pig is not society's fault

 

[Revoltingest]

Then don't get into the chicken bidness; again....

Or consumers shouldn't be so stupid.

 

[anotherneil]

Or consumers shouldn't be so stupid.

This has nothing to do with stupidity; this has to do with things like dishonesty, negligence, incompetence, and liability.

 

[Revoltingest]

Blaming the victim.....

....is sometimes appropriate.

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914854eadd7b049344c42ae

 

[Revoltingest]

This has nothing to do with stupidity; this has to do with things like dishonesty, negligence, incompetence, and liability.

You're talk'n about the guy who ate the bone, right?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Gluttony is a lifestyle choice and the many potential hazards are common knowledge

I am sick and tired of victim culture

Being a pig is not society's fault

Did the article specify that this guy was swallowing his boneless chicken whole? I don’t see how there’s any way to prove that’s what he was doing.

It’s certainly possible to swallow a bone on accident even if you aren’t inhaling your food.

Regardless, we’re blaming someone for trusting the servers to leave the bones out. Had he choked on the meat itself or something of that matter, sure, but he ordered chicken without bones. The bone tore his esophagus. Are you really saying he’s at fault?

If we can’t even expect someone who advertised their product to not have bones in it, we will have to live paranoid.

 

[anotherneil]

You're talk'n about the guy who ate the bone, right?

If you mean the guy who ate a piece of chicken that he was told was boneless but actually wasn't, and as a result was victimized by it, then yes.

 

[Eddi]

Did the article specify that this guy was swallowing his boneless chicken whole?

Well, he obviously wasn't paying as much attention as he should have been that's for sure

Are you really saying he’s at fault?

He should have payed attention to what was in his mouth, so yes

And not be like a walrus gulping down a bucket of fish in a zoo