An incident involving a small bone in a “boneless chicken wing” has led to serious medical complications for a consumer and subsequently sparked a lawsuit. However, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled on Thursday (July 25) that consumers should not expect “boneless chicken wings” to be completely bone-free.
Michael Berkheimer and his wife were dining with friends at a chicken wing restaurant in Hamilton, Ohio, where Berkheimer ordered his favorite boneless chicken wings with Parmesan garlic sauce. During the meal, Berkheimer felt a small piece of meat stuck in his throat.
Three days later, Berkheimer developed a fever and difficulty eating, prompting him to visit the emergency room. Doctors discovered a thin bone had pierced his esophagus, causing an infection.
Subsequently, Berkheimer filed a lawsuit against the restaurant named “Wings on Brookwood,” alleging that they failed to warn him that their so-called “boneless chicken wings” might contain bones. The lawsuit also named the chicken wing supplier and the farm that produced the chicken, accusing them of negligence.
The state Supreme Court ruled 4-3 on Thursday, stating that “boneless chicken wings” refer to a cooking method. As a consumer of this dish, Berkheimer should have been cautious about chicken bones, as it is common knowledge that chickens have bones. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision to dismiss Berkheimer’s lawsuit.
“In reading ‘boneless chicken wings’ on the menu, diners should not believe that the restaurant is guaranteeing these foods are bone-free,” Judge Joseph T. Deters, who supported the ruling, wrote.
However, dissenting judges argued that Deters’ reasoning was unfounded and that it should be left to a jury to determine if the restaurant was negligent in serving Berkheimer “boneless chicken wings.”
“The question must be asked: does anyone truly believe that parents in this country feeding boneless chicken wings, chicken tenders, chicken nuggets, or chicken strips to young children would anticipate there may be bones in chicken meat?” Judge Michael P. Donnelly wrote in the dissenting opinion. “They certainly would not. When they read ‘boneless,’ they believe it means ‘no bones,’ as any reasonable person would.”