An Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that “boneless chicken wings” can indeed contain bones, dismissing a lawsuit filed by a man who fell ill after finding a bone in his order.
The court clarified that “boneless wings” refers to a cooking style rather than a literal absence of bones. Michael Berkheimer had ordered boneless wings with parmesan garlic sauce at a Hamilton, Ohio, restaurant in 2016. After eating, he felt something uncomfortable and later discovered he had swallowed a long, thin bone, which caused a tear in his esophagus and an infection.
Berkheimer filed a lawsuit against the restaurant, the supplier, and the farm that produced the chicken, alleging negligence and failure to warn about the potential presence of bones. Lower courts had previously dismissed his suit, which was then reviewed by the state’s highest court.
In a 4-3 decision, the Supreme Court emphasized that “boneless wings” should not be taken literally, and it is common sense to expect that bones might still be present. Justice Joseph T. Deters, writing for the majority, stated, “A diner reading ‘boneless wings’ on a menu would no more expect the restaurant to guarantee the absence of bones than believe the items are made from actual chicken wings, just as one would not think ‘chicken fingers’ implies actual fingers.”
However, dissenting justices felt that the matter should have been decided by a jury rather than the court. Justice Michael P. Donnelly argued, “Does anyone really believe that parents feeding their children boneless wings or chicken nuggets expect bones to be present? Clearly, they do not. The term ‘boneless’ is understood to mean ‘without bones’ by all reasonable people.”
