The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that a restaurant is not liable for a customer’s injury caused by a bone found in an order of boneless wings. The decision, handed down Thursday, upheld a previous appellate court ruling and was reached by a 4-3 vote.
The case began in 2017 when Michael Berkheimer sued Wings on Brookwood in Hamilton, Ohio, after experiencing a medical issue in 2016. Berkheimer alleged that a bone from a “boneless” wing lodged in his throat, causing significant health problems.
In its ruling, the Ohio Supreme Court stated that the term “boneless” on the menu referred to a cooking style rather than a guarantee of a bone-free dish. The court reasoned that the presence of bone fragments in meat dishes is a reasonably expected occurrence, even in items labeled as “boneless.”
The majority opinion emphasized that consumers should anticipate and guard against potential bone fragments in such dishes. Justice Joseph T. Deters, writing for the majority, noted, “A diner reading ‘boneless wings’ on a menu would no more believe that the restaurant was warranting the absence of bones than believe that the items were made from chicken wings.”
Berkheimer’s lawsuit stemmed from an incident where he felt a bone in his throat while eating boneless wings with parmesan garlic sauce. His medical records indicated that a 5cm-long chicken bone was found lodged in his esophagus, leading to a tear, infection, and ongoing health issues.
Berkheimer initially filed the lawsuit against the restaurant, a food supplier, and a chicken farm in the Butler County Common Pleas Court in 2017. The court dismissed the case, ruling that the presence of bone fragments was something consumers should reasonably expect. This decision was upheld by the Twelfth District Court and, eventually, by the Ohio Supreme Court.
Dissenting justices argued that the case should have been presented to a jury, which could better assess consumer expectations regarding boneless wings. Despite these dissenting views, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion confirmed the dismissal, affirming that the restaurant was not responsible for the injury.
