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.

  • meejle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    19 days ago

    Does boneless chicken in the US not have a warning printed on the packaging? Ours does in Britain – I’m not 100% sure if it’s universal, but I’ve definitely noticed it on fast food packaging.

    “While every effort has been taken to remove bones, some may remain.”

    • Eiri@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 days ago

      Then boneless shouldn’t be allowed to be on the packaging. Largely de-boned. 99% bone-free. Those would be acceptable.

      But boneless implies you scan the items and reject any and all pieces that would still have a bone in them.

      I hate this.

      • bss03@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        19 days ago

        Did you know there’s an allowable amount of insect parts and rat feces that can be in your food without any particular labeling required?

        There is no known process for removing bones from chicken that is perfect.

        That said, something that is large enough to be described as a “long, thin bone” by a reasonable observer should NOT be allowed in something labeled “boneless”, and the restaurant and any other entity involved in the deboning should have shared liability. If the process is accurate enough, the liability risk is low.

  • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    19 days ago

    Poultry farming is an industry where terms mean nothing. It is rife with horribly misleading terms that are completely unregulated or have weak definitions that are unenforced. This is not as uprising when you see it through that lens. It’s a continuation of existing absurdity that are less talked about

    For instance, “free-range” doesn’t actually have to mean being outdoors at all

    Bringing up a Tyson competitor, the farm manager wonders how other poultry companies handle supposedly free-range-raised chickens. The short answer: They don’t, really.

    “Those birds don’t go outside — you know that,” the technician replies. “They don’t all go out … Look that up online.”

    The manager chimes in: “It’s not like they make it like all of ’em come out and enjoy the sun.”

    “That is strictly for commercial [advertising] purposes,” the technician says.

    […]

    In 2017, the Intercept reported an investigation into a dozen California farms owned by a free-range chicken company that found no evidence of any animals spending any time outdoors. The chief animal care officer for Perdue Farms, a major chicken producer, has even said the vast majority of its free-range chickens stay indoors.

    https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23724740/tyson-chicken-free-range-humanewashing-investigation-animal-cruelty


    Also as a note, the ruling on this case was from last year

      • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        19 days ago

        To clarify at the end, by “the case”, I mean the original article my comment is replying to. As in they posted an Ohio Supreme Court ruling from 2024


        Free range in the US and many other countries just requires “access” to the outdoors. Access is not defined. That can be conveniently interpreted to be as little as “we had a door to a tiny screened area we open up sometimes.” Or just straight up not enforced. Free-range eggs don’t have a legal definition at all in the US from my understanding

        And often for a number of the terms, they just have to submit documentation to the USDA, but not actually ever receive inspections on it. Even when clear cut labels like “no antibiotics ever” seems like it’d be hard to have a weak definition around right? Well silly, you can just ignore violations of it. Here’s one example of that for the beef industry

        Federal Inspectors Found Antibiotics in Beef ‘Raised Without Antibiotics.’ They Took No Action

    • Kairos@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      19 days ago

      To be specific, the ruling affirms that “boneless wings” is about the type of “wing” (chicken nugget) not the boned status of the wing. Although I don’t think the ruling is good because the response to ambiguous words isn’t to make their legal meaning more arbitrary. Force the industry to use some other word.

      It’s the same thing with half-wings being called “wings”

    • Stamau123@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 days ago

      I want to know, specifically, what judge Deter considers ‘boneless’ cooking style, because what the fuck

      • LadyMeow@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        19 days ago

        Lmao Also a good point. Breaded? But like…… ok. Look, at this point I expect them to suck at technology, sure they are ancient and blah blah, fines. But uhh…. Cooking has been around for a while boss. Even boneless wings… so uhhh…… what the fuck is right.