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.

  • TBi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    I think part of it is that you honestly can’t say anything is “x” free. As long as the company has done due diligence and there is as little as possible then I’m ok with it.

    If it’s used as a get out of jail card for bad practice then I’m against it.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Especially with alcohol. Anything with sugar will have at least a tiny amount of it ferment into alcohol. This is also why 0% BAC driving laws are nonsense.

      That said, 0.1% might be perfectly reasonable over 0.5%.