Chicken wings advertised as ‘boneless’ can have bones, Ohio Supreme Court decides

[Jason]

what the fuck is going on in Ohio

 

Quote

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.

 

“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.

 

The dissenting justices called Deters’ reasoning “utter jabberwocky,” and said a jury should’ve been allowed to decide whether the restaurant was negligent in serving Berkheimer a piece of chicken that was advertised as boneless.

 

Chicken wings advertised as 'boneless' can have bones, Ohio Supreme Court decides

APNEWS.COM

---

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

 

[Jason]

I see the Ohio Supreme Court is 4-3 Republican-Democrat so I assume this was a party-line vote.

[silentbob]

God how incompetent/stupid are they for corporations? I hope they choke on the bone of their boneless chicken wings one day. 
 

also don’t fingers have bones in them, like wings?

[Chairslinger]

Quote

In a 4-3 ruling, the Supreme Court said Thursday that “boneless wings” refers to a cooking style

 

 

But does it though?

 

The chicken finger argument is ridiculous, but I am trying to even steelman their argument and consider the chicken wing thing.

 

But even trying to go with them...."boneless chicken" is not a cooking style....it is a description....

 

If you ask someone "do you want boneless chicken" that tells them nothing about the style/flavor of chicken other than, presumably, that it doesn't have bones in it. Boneless chicken can be plain, BBQ, spicy, Buffalo....that argument makes no sense.

 

 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

So in Ohio chicken nuggets can have bones. Chicken deli meat should have bones. Bones in your chicken salad? Should have expected it. 
 

“Cooking style”

get the fuck out of here. 

[finaljedi]

There are 4 fucking judges in my state who saw someone get seriously injured by a bone in boneless chicken and thought they should have been more aware that boneless chicken doesn't come with assurances that the chicken is in fact boneless.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

I wonder if they entertained answering the obvious clarification: what is the boneless style and how it differs from other chicken cooking styles

[outsida]

Did they get their “tip” afterwards?

[Uaarkson]

What about boneless pizza tho 

 

 

[Keyser_Soze]

They are deciding on the most important issues for the people.

[LazyPiranha]

I feel like there is a way to reach the exact same legal conclusion without having the worst possible analysis.  
 

You can make the argument that everyone knows that “boneless” chicken was chicken that had bones and were removed.  This process isn’t going to be perfect, I’ve bought boneless/skinless chicken that had remnants of both in them, just like I’ve bought pitted olives that had pits and bags of beans that had small stones mixed in.  It’s just the nature of these products, minor mistakes will happen despite best efforts.  You can very easily make the argument that someone ordering boneless wings should know that there is a possibility of bones and act accordingly without making the weird leaps they do here.

[sblfilms]

2 hours ago, LazyPiranha said:

 

I feel like there is a way to reach the exact same legal conclusion without having the worst possible analysis.

 

Yes, 100%. They were correct on the issue but came up with the absolute most bananas analogies.

 

A fillet is not a guarantee that there are no bones, and you always need to be prepared to find some.

[Jason]

4 hours ago, LazyPiranha said:

I feel like there is a way to reach the exact same legal conclusion without having the worst possible analysis.  
 

You can make the argument that everyone knows that “boneless” chicken was chicken that had bones and were removed.  This process isn’t going to be perfect, I’ve bought boneless/skinless chicken that had remnants of both in them, just like I’ve bought pitted olives that had pits and bags of beans that had small stones mixed in.  It’s just the nature of these products, minor mistakes will happen despite best efforts.  You can very easily make the argument that someone ordering boneless wings should know that there is a possibility of bones and act accordingly without making the weird leaps they do here.

 

But that doesn't advance the agenda that the sky's the limit with the SCOTUS decision that judges know better than regulators.