Court Ruling
The court ruling was split between Republican and Democrat justices on the Ohio Supreme Court. Republicans thought it was reasonable for customers to expect bones in wings.
Source: Katrin Bolovtsova/Pexels
“There is no breach of a duty when the consumer could have reasonably expected and guarded against the presence of the injurious substance in the food,” said Republican Justice Joe Deters in the majority opinion.
Matter of Law
The Ohio Supreme Court concurred with lower courts that as a matter of law, “the defendants were not negligent in serving or supplying the boneless wing.”
Source: Jeff Kubina/Wikimedia
“We conclude that the court of appeals got it right,” wrote Deters. “That consideration is informed by whether the injurious substance is foreign to or natural to the food. The court of appeals correctly applied this blended analysis in determining that there was no material question of fact about whether Berkheimer could have reasonably expected a bone to be in the boneless wing and thus could have guarded against it.”
Disagreement Among Judges
The Democrat justices serving on the court found the reasoning from their Republican colleagues absurd and suggested that this question should be up for a jury to decide, not appeal judges.
Source: Sora Shimazaki/Pexels
“The result in this case is another nail in the coffin of the American jury system,” wrote Democrat Justice Michael Donnelly. “In my view, the majority opinion makes a factual determination to ensure that a jury does not have a chance to apply something the majority opinion lacks − common sense.”
Facts of the Case
The events leading to this case began in April 2016, when a man ordered boneless wings from a restaurant in Hamilton, Ohio.
Source: Famartin/Wikimedia
The wings came served with parmesan garlic sauce and went down smoothly for the man at first.
Chicken Bone
However, as the man consumed the third wing, he felt that something was wrong. According to the man, he “felt something go down the wrong pipe” and tried to clear what was in his throat but could not.
Source: Marcelo Leal/Unsplash
The man contracted a fever overnight and ended up with an infection from the incident, having to undergo two surgeries to recover.
Sueing the Restaurant
In 2017, the man sued the owners of the restaurant he dined at, the supplier, and producer of the chicken used in the meal he was served.
Source: wirestock/freepik
A trial judge found against the man, asserting that the possibility of bones in boneless chicken should be something a reasonable person should guard against. A 12th District Appeals court agreed with the ruling, and now the Ohio Supreme Court has concurred as well.
Boneless Means Boneless
The man in the case argued that boneless should mean boneless and that if something is advertised and called one thing, then it should conform to the customer’s expectations.
Source: Atharva Tulsi/Unsplash
This plaintiff argued that by having bones in boneless chicken, the defendants were guilty of negligence and responsible for his injuries.
Natural to Meat
However, the defendants disagreed, arguing that bones are a natural part of meat and someone should be expected to contend with them. The majority of Ohio Supreme Court justices in the case agreed.
Source: Egor Myznik/Unsplash
“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 Deters wrote. “The food item’s label on the menu described a cooking style; it was not a guarantee.”
Boneless Process
According to court filings, the cook for the restaurant in the case described the process for making wings by utilizing rough cuts that produce about 20 one-inch chunks from a chicken breast.
Source: Zoe Schaeffer/Unsplash
The wings were made from boneless, skinless chicken breast from a supplier.
Reaction to the Story
Commenters online reacting to the court’s decision were confused by the logic of the ruling, making jokes about the definition of the terms.
Source: Kaitlyn Baker/Unsplash
“So a boneless wing doesn’t have to be boneless or a wing. It probably doesn’t even have to be chicken by next year,” said one Reddit comment.
Pro Business Judges
Others blamed the judge’s political leanings, accusing them of trying to protect the interests of businesses over consumers.
Source: Rohan Reddy/Unsplash
“Pro-business judges decide to build up Mount Bullsh*t yet again,” said a Reddit commenter. “Conservative judges put corporate profits over people? Shocker,” said another.