Crazy Court Ruling On Boneless Chicken Wings
A court has rules that boneless chicken wings don’t need to be boneless.
Sorry, but this seems crazy to me. Maybe it's just me. A court has ruled that advertising chicken wings as “boneless” doesn’t mean they have to be bone-free. That’s according to the Ohio Supreme Court, which on Thursday made the determination in settling a lawsuit filed by a man against a Hamilton wing joint.
In his lawsuit, Michael Berkheimer says he ordered boneless wings from Wings on Brookwood – and ended up with a tear in his esophagus, which doctors say was caused by a long, thin bone he swallowed. He sued the restaurant, claiming it was liable because it wasn’t honest about having bones in its chicken wings.
In a 4-3 decision handed down on Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that the term “boneless wings” refers to a style of cooking, not the content of the chicken. It also ruled that Berkheimer should have eaten more carefully because it’s “common knowledge that chickens have bones.” Suit dismissed.
According to 10TV, “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 Joseph T. Deters wrote for the majority.
So if a product advertises itself as poisonless, it's OK if it has a little poison. It doesn't have to be poison-free!
