iStockphoto
Boneless chicken wings have been a hot topic of debate among bar food aficionados who argue about whether or not they should even be called wings in the first place, and now, Ohio’s Supreme Court has complicated matters even further with a controversial ruling.
The National Chicken Council credits Buffalo Wild Wings with introducing the world to the concept of boneless chicken wings, which first popped up on the chain’s menu in 2003.
I personally have nothing against boneless wings and occasionally order them for myself when the spirit moves me.
With that said, I’m also one of the many bone-in purists who take issue with the misnomer that’s used to market the glorified chicken nuggets that are traditionally made from chunks of breast meat and have nothing to do with the literal wings.
As a result, I can’t help but respect the man who passionately argued they should not be referred to as wings at a city council meeting a few years back as well as another guy who took B-Dubs to court by filing a lawsuit that followed a similar line of logic.
There is one issue I think people on both sides of this particular argument should be able to agree on: boneless wings should not contain any bones. However, Ohio’s Supreme Court apparently feels differently.
According to The Columbus Dispatch, Ohio’s highest court agreed to hear an appeal filed by the defendants in a lawsuit involving the case of Michael Berkheimer, who ordered boneless wings at a restaurant in the city of Hamilton in 2016 and ended up with a piece of bone lodged in his throat that eventually forced him to undergo multiple surgeries.
The following year, he sued the eatery as well as the companies that processed and supplied its chicken while arguing anyone who orders boneless wings should not expect to encounter any bones when they chow down (the accused parties argued bones are “natural to meat” and that there’s only so much they can do to make sure boneless wings lived up to the label).
Multiple judges agreed with Berkheimer, but things took a turn when the case headed to the Ohio Supreme Court prior to the issuing of a 4-3 decision where the quartet of justices that comprises its Republican majority ruled boneless wings can, in fact, have bones, stating:
“There is no breach of a duty when the consumer could have reasonably expected and guarded against the presence of the injurious substance in the food…
The food item’s label on the menu described a cooking style; it was not a guarantee.”
The Democrat who penned the dissenting opinion primarily took issue with the court ruling on a matter he asserted should be settled by a jury while also highlighting a potential flaw in the argument due to a slippery slope involving common allergens, saying:
“People can die under some of those circumstances, and this court would point to the decision in this case and say that lactose and gluten and nuts are natural to foods”
It’s been a big year for food-related legal decisions in the Midwest, as this ruling was issued around two months after a judge in Indiana ruled tacos can be classified as sandwiches.