Ohio's Supreme Court ruled that boneless chicken wings don't have to actually be free of bones in regards to a case of a man who suffered a serious medical condition from a bone at a wings restaurant.
Michael Berkheimer was eating at Wings on Brookwood back in 2016 when he says he felt "something go down the wrong pipe."
He couldn't eat the next day without throwing up.
He went to the emergency room. Doctors told him he had a two-inch bone inside that had torn his esophagus. He also had developed an infection.
Berkheimer sued the restaurant and the case worked its way up to the state's highest court.
The court ruled that "boneless wings" refers to a cooking style, and that he should have known the possibility of bones existed because chickens have bones.
"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," Justice Joseph T. Deters wrote in the majority decision. "Just as a person eating 'chicken fingers' would know that he had not been served fingers."
Three justices were overruled in the case.
"The question must be asked: Does anyone really believe that the parents in this country who feed their young children boneless wings or chicken tenders or chicken nuggets or chicken fingers expect bones to be in the chicken? Of course they don't," Justice Michael P. Donnelly wrote in dissent. "When they read the word 'boneless,' they think that it means 'without bones,' as do all sensible people."
