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.

  • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Some fat ass doesn’t chew his food and suddenly corporations win? You can never have perfection with organic products. What exactly do you want done to guarantee meat from a boned animal isn’t left in the meat? And how much will it cost to do it, and are you willing to pay for it?

    *I’m glad Ohio judges are more intelligent than most of you all.

        • SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Then break a tooth when you bite too hard on a “boneless chicken”

          Or what, you gonna say you chew slowly too?

          It’s actually kinda fucking insane of you to take the side of “business should be allowed to flat out lie to you, even after it almost kills someone”. Maybe talk with a psychiatrist about your lack of empathy. There’s probably a diagnosis for your level of sociopathy

    • pyre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      why do you even worry about it, this doesn’t interfere with your boot diet.

    • Freefall@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      That’s a pretty ignorant take. "thing"less means without “thing”. Boneless means without bones. Without means there isn’t ANY in something.

      THEIR process, which is not the customer’s problem to solve, should guarantee there are no bones left in any product labeled “boneless”, because that is how words and companies work…

      You cost statement is irrelevant. It’s capitalism, baby! You make boneless stuff as advertised and set the price at what the market will accept. If your company can’t make “BONELESS” wings, then you don’t get to sell them until you figure out a cost effective way of doing it. Use a different word that isn’t a complete lie.

      Judges can be bought and make stupid calls that only morons support…see also SCOTUS.

    • theherk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      What kind of hail corporate nonsense is this? Either call it “fewer bones” or have it be without bones. I don’t expect it to be a certain price but I expect boneless chicken to be just as boneless as it is chicken.