In a recent ruling, the Ohio Supreme Court determined that “boneless chicken wings” do not guarantee that the product will be entirely free of bones. The decision came after Michael Berkheimer, a diner who experienced severe complications from a bone lodged in his throat, sued a Hamilton, Ohio restaurant, Wings on Brookwood.
Berkheimer had ordered boneless wings but later suffered a serious injury when a small bone tore his esophagus, leading to an infection. He claimed that the restaurant’s description of “boneless wings” misled him into believing that the dish would be completely free of bones. He also sued the supplier and the farm that produced the chicken, alleging negligence.
The Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, upheld lower court rulings dismissing Berkheimer’s suit. The majority opinion argued that “boneless wings” refers to a preparation style rather than a guarantee of no bones, noting that it is generally understood that chicken contains bones. Justice Joseph T. Deters, who wrote for the majority, stated that customers would not interpret “boneless wings” to mean entirely bone-free any more than they would believe “chicken fingers” are literal fingers.
Dissenting justices argued that the case should have been decided by a jury, expressing concern that consumers reasonably expect “boneless” products to be free of bones. Justice Michael P. Donnelly, writing for the dissent, emphasized that people commonly expect “boneless” to mean exactly that, and that the term should not be used to mislead consumers.