Chicken wings advertised as 'boneless' can have bones, Ohio Supreme Court decides
Chicken wings advertised as 'boneless' can have bones, Ohio Supreme Court decides
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.
Boneless is a "cooking style?" No. It's which bag of chicken I pull out of the freezer before I even turn the oven on. I'm not going to sous vide the fucking bones out of my wings.
If the restaurant is deboning wings to order, fine. I'll accept that. But then that shit had better be on the menu so I know to be careful.
So just like all those "unlimited" phone plans with limits, "free" trials that require a credit card number and "lifetime" warranties that expire after a few years? Cool. Cool cool cool...
So amazingly stupid. The conservative justic's "logic" here is a case-study in failing upwards. He tries to say that "nobody would think that chicken fingers are actual fingers." Like, chicken fingers is a colloquial name, and is not the same as a fuckin descriptor adjective. He might as well say that dairy-free ice cream can have dairy in it, because "no reasonable person would think ice cream wouldn't have dairy in it."
what a joke. This brought to you by the same supreme court that has ruled against the will of Ohio voters who voted for an anti-gerrymandering bill, just to have a republican led commission drag it's feet, presenting identical maps, and instead of allowing the usage of an actual fair map, they just threw the baby out with bathwater, leaving in place the terrible gerrymandered maps that heavily favor republicans till 2030.
Just another reason I'll never move back to my home state. conservatives ruined it.
That's fucking ridiculous though I think it's perfectly fair for s restaurant not to be ultimately liable. This case feels like a gimmie to Perdue/Tyson to dodge any accountability for their bargin bin meat farming operations.
I'm gonna assume this is one of the Project 2025 legislations
I don't know why but it reminds me of an American friend I had who couldn't beleive we didn't have limits on the amount maggots/maggots eggs allowed in fruit juice.
They refused to drink any fruit juice here until it had to be explained to them that the reason that there's no acceptable limit on maggots/maggots eggs in our fruit juice is because ANY amount of maggot is over the acceptable amount.
Not their fault of course. We only know what we're used to.
The Ohio Supreme Court's decision to allow chicken wings advertised as 'boneless' to contain bones warrants an examination of the principles underlying voluntary exchanges and the protection of consumer rights. When individuals engage in transactions, the terms and descriptions presented are expected to be accurate, fostering trust and informed decision-making. An advertisement promising 'boneless' wings that includes bones disrupts this trust, introducing an element of deception.
For a marketplace to function effectively, it is essential that representations made in the course of business transactions are truthful. Consumers rely on these representations to make choices that align with their preferences and expectations. If these expectations are systematically violated, the very foundation of voluntary exchange is compromised.
Thus, the court's role in addressing such issues is to ensure that the transactional environment remains transparent and honest. By upholding standards against misleading advertisements, the court helps maintain the integrity of voluntary exchanges, allowing individuals to engage in transactions free from coercion and deceit.
So what then is the difference between the boneless chicken wing cooking style and normal chicken wing cooking style? If it starts with "take a piece of chicken meat without any bones", then what stops this line of argument from saying that it doesn't matter how well they follow the recipe and thus restaurants can serve whatever they want to meet any order and then just say "we were following the (name of food) cooking style, not promising that, and are just bad at following that style or made up our own version"?
On a related note, how are judges determined to be qualified to make any decision? Are they supposed to be fair and intelligent, or just do their best to judge things in a fair and intelligent style?
That said, there was a bit of a fluke involved to have the bone go down the wrong way and also him not even notice for a few days. IMO in a proper decision, the restaurant shouldn't have been fully liable for this incident, though they should have had some liability for that bone. And then some of that liability might be passed on to whoever provided them with the "boneless" chicken meat.
On one hand, I accept that a boneless chicken wing has a tiny chance of containing some amount of bone, and can see where suing a restaurant over it, even if you injure yourself eating it, is a bit frivolous. Boneless chicken wings did come from a chicken with bones in it, and it's weird to complain that the chicken wasn't made into completely homogeneous pink slime before being turned into a nugget...
I don't understand, however, how this made it to the state Supreme Court, resulting in this decision, which seemingly allows restaurants to outright lie about what they are serving.
Yo, humans need to get medieval on these reptilian motherfuckers. Make them stand under the bones of 2 billion boneless chicken. If they are human, they will survive. If they are corporate shills, they will die. As they should.
Here I was hoping it'd be about using bonemeal in shit like nuggies or hot dogs. RIP.
this is pressing political issues THAT ACTUALLY FUCKING MATTER RAHHHHHHH
So a person with a latex allergy should assume latex-free gloves will FUCKING KILL THEM? Is that the gist of this ruling?