'Boneless' chicken wings can have bones, US court rules

In a surprising ruling from Ohio's highest court, it has been determined that 'boneless' chicken wings do not necessarily mean they are free of bones. This decision came about after a man named Michael Berkheimer filed a lawsuit against a restaurant called Wings on Brookwood. The incident occurred in 2016 when Michael ordered his usual boneless wings with parmesan garlic sauce. Unfortunately, he later discovered that a piece of bone had made its way into his meal, causing him to feel discomfort. After three days of feeling unwell, he sought medical attention, where doctors found a long bone that had caused a tear in his esophagus, leading to an infection. Michael's lawsuit claimed that the restaurant failed to inform him that the boneless wings could contain bones, which he believed was a serious oversight. The court's ruling, which was announced on a Thursday, was a narrow 4-3 decision. The majority of the judges argued that the term 'boneless wing' refers to a cooking style rather than a literal absence of bones. Justice Joseph T Deters, who wrote the majority opinion, stated that a diner seeing 'boneless wings' on a menu would not assume that the dish was guaranteed to be completely bone-free. He compared it to ordering 'chicken fingers,' where no one expects to be served actual fingers. The controversy surrounding boneless wings began when Michael was dining out with his wife and friends. He had ordered his favorite dish, but after eating, he felt something uncomfortable in his throat. After a few days of feeling feverish, he went to the emergency room, where doctors discovered the bone that had caused the injury. Michael did not only sue the restaurant; he also included the supplier and the farm that produced the chicken in his lawsuit, claiming negligence on their part. Lower courts had dismissed Michael's case, which then made its way to the Ohio Supreme Court. The majority of justices felt that it was common knowledge that chickens have bones, and they sided with the lower courts. Justice Deters emphasized that the menu item was simply a description of a cooking style and not a guarantee of bone absence. However, the dissenting judges believed that the matter should have been decided by a jury rather than the justices. Justice Michael P Donnelly, who disagreed with the majority, raised an important question: Do parents really think that when they feed their children boneless wings or chicken tenders, there could be bones in them? He argued that when people read the word 'boneless,' they naturally assume it means 'without bones,' which is a reasonable expectation.