The Ohio Supreme Court says consumers can't expect boneless chicken wings to actually be free of bones.

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.

…

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.

  • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
    1083·
    4 months ago

    Some fat ass doesn’t chew his food and suddenly corporations win? You can never have perfection with organic products. What exactly do you want done to guarantee meat from a boned animal isn’t left in the meat? And how much will it cost to do it, and are you willing to pay for it?

    *I’m glad Ohio judges are more intelligent than most of you all.

    • jpreston2005@lemmy.world
      31·
      4 months ago

      boneless wings cost more, because the bone and gristle is removed. You’re paying extra for that removal. if it’s not done, then the FDA says you’re not allowed to call it boneless.

      • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
        129·
        4 months ago

        They’re from an entirely different part of the bird is why they don’t cost the same. They also don’t always cost more.

    • pyre@lemmy.world
      27·
      4 months ago

      why do you even worry about it, this doesn’t interfere with your boot diet.

    • theherk@lemmy.world
      271·
      4 months ago

      What kind of hail corporate nonsense is this? Either call it “fewer bones” or have it be without bones. I don’t expect it to be a certain price but I expect boneless chicken to be just as boneless as it is chicken.

        • SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world
          14·
          4 months ago

          Then break a tooth when you bite too hard on a “boneless chicken”

          Or what, you gonna say you chew slowly too?

          It’s actually kinda fucking insane of you to take the side of “business should be allowed to flat out lie to you, even after it almost kills someone”. Maybe talk with a psychiatrist about your lack of empathy. There’s probably a diagnosis for your level of sociopathy

    • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
      161·
      4 months ago

      You should expect what you are paying for. They did pay for boneless, so they were willing to do so. Everything else ranges from false advertisement to negligence

    • yamanii@lemmy.world
      131·
      4 months ago

      I’m sure the restaurant stealing wages by making tips necessary can afford it.

    • Freefall@lemmy.world
      9·
      4 months ago

      That’s a pretty ignorant take. "thing"less means without “thing”. Boneless means without bones. Without means there isn’t ANY in something.

      THEIR process, which is not the customer’s problem to solve, should guarantee there are no bones left in any product labeled “boneless”, because that is how words and companies work…

      You cost statement is irrelevant. It’s capitalism, baby! You make boneless stuff as advertised and set the price at what the market will accept. If your company can’t make “BONELESS” wings, then you don’t get to sell them until you figure out a cost effective way of doing it. Use a different word that isn’t a complete lie.

      Judges can be bought and make stupid calls that only morons support…see also SCOTUS.

    • kandoh@reddthat.com
      92·
      4 months ago

      And how much will it cost to do it, and are you willing to pay for it?

      We are paying for it already. Now they can reduce their costs while keeping the price the same.

    • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
      3·
      4 months ago

      You can argue about if the guy should have noticed or not, that would be a factor in what he was awarded. But the lack of quality control needs to be addressed. This wasn’t a small bone, it was over an inch long. I am sure they have better ways, but sonic waves like a sonogram should be able to automatically detect that bone. And it’s very cheap. If your process doesn’t have a way to check for bones you just can’t call it boneless. Simple as that. If you have a way, and it misses a tiny tiny bone, that is one thing, but that is not what happened here. Also, the court system is messed up. If he hadn’t been injured, then he wouldn’t have been able to bring the case. You have to show your standing, as in your lose, to bring the case. And if it is below a certain amount you can only go to small claims court. So there could be bones in everyone of those boneless chicken wings. But until some one suffers enough financial loss, they can’t sue. That is why the specific individual doesn’t really matter here.