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

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/17958592

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.

  • over_clox@lemmy.world
    10·
    4 months ago

    Chickens also have feathers, beaks, claws, etc…

    Isn’t that the entire purpose of the meat processing industry? To separate the different parts and edible meats?

    This sounds about as much bullshit as if I tried to sell a bicycle with ‘airless tires’, only to sell a bicycle with flat tires.

    Like seriously, WTF?!

  • Che Banana@beehaw.org
    8·
    4 months ago

    On our restaurant law class (some 25 yrs ago) basically if food inherently has an item that isn’t usually eaten (olive pits, fruit stones, bones, etc.) the patrón still needs to take caution that the food may still contain these items.

    On the other hand, once a dish is sold to someone, then everything served is sold; the example given was if you were served a salad with the cooks engagement ring in it, it’s yours, because you bought it.

    • Chrobin
      7·
      4 months ago

      As a German I assumed that the “less” in such adjectives are not talking about the word less as fewer, but is adapted from the German suffix “-los”, which means “free”.

      • Peppycito@sh.itjust.works
        31·
        4 months ago

        It implies “free” in English too, the “fewer” meaning is probably from marketing people covering their ass. It’s a play on stainless steel, in that it can still rust but mostly doesn’t.