1. Background of the Ohio Boneless Chicken Wings Lawsuit
The Ohio boneless chicken wings lawsuit made headlines by challenging the very meaning and expectations behind the term “boneless wings.”
This legal case sparked wide debate about food labeling, consumer safety, and restaurant liability when a customer swallowed a chicken bone while eating wings advertised as boneless.
This article explores the lawsuit’s background, courtroom battle, and the Ohio Supreme Court’s landmark ruling that shaped industry practices nationwide.
The lawsuit was filed by Michael Berkheimer, an Ohio resident who frequently visited Wings on Brookwood, a local chicken wing restaurant.
In 2016, while eating his usual order of boneless wings with parmesan garlic sauce, Berkheimer experienced a disturbing incident: he swallowed a piece of bone embedded in what was labeled a boneless wing.
Shortly after, Berkheimer developed a high fever, experienced difficulty swallowing, and later required emergency medical treatment.
Doctors discovered a chicken bone approximately 5 centimeters long lodged in his esophagus. The bone caused tearing of the esophagus and a bacterial infection that led to ongoing medical complications, requiring surgeries and considerable recovery time.
2. Legal Claims Made by Michael Berkheimer
Berkheimer sued the restaurant, its chicken supplier, and the chicken farm responsible for providing the poultry. His claims included:
- Negligence: Alleging the restaurant failed to warn him or adequately inspect the “boneless” wings for bones.
- Breach of Warranty: Arguing the “boneless” label implied a guarantee that wings would contain no bones.
- Product Liability: Claiming the bone in what was sold as boneless wings was a dangerous foreign object causing injury.
3. Key Arguments: What Does “Boneless” Really Mean?
Central to this lawsuit was the interpretation of the term “boneless.” Berkheimer and his legal team contended that consumers reasonably expect boneless wings to be free of bones, as the name strongly implies.
They argued this expectation is particularly held by parents who feed boneless wings to children.
On the other hand, the defendants maintained that “boneless wings” refers to a preparation style rather than an absolute guarantee that bones will never be present.
They argued that chicken breast meat, the usual source for boneless wings, naturally can contain small bone fragments, and such occurrences are an inherent risk customers should anticipate.
4. The Court Battle: From Trial to the Ohio Supreme Court
The case initially moved through Ohio’s trial courts and appellate courts, where the lower courts sided with the restaurant and its suppliers. They concluded that the restaurant was not negligent because:
- Chicken breasts, used to make boneless wings, can naturally contain small bones or bone fragments.
- Consumers should be on guard for such bones as part of eating chicken.
- The label “boneless wings” describes a style of cooking, not a guarantee of bone absence.
Berkheimer appealed the decision to the Ohio Supreme Court, which issued a closely divided 4-3 ruling in July 2024, affirming the prior rulings in favor of the restaurant and suppliers.
5. Ohio Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling
Writing for the majority, Justice Joseph T. Deters declared that a reasonable diner understands “boneless wings” to describe preparation and not an absolute warranty that the chicken will contain zero bones. The opinion famously stated:
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.
The court reasoned that bones are a natural part of poultry, and diners should expect some risk of encountering them when consuming chicken-based products—even those labeled as boneless.
Dissenting Opinion
The dissenting justices criticized the decision sharply, arguing that consumers do have a reasonable expectation that “boneless” means no bones. Justice Michael P. Donnelly explained that jurors, based on common sense and their own experiences, are better suited to decide if the restaurant was negligent rather than a panel of judges.
Does anyone really believe that parents feeding their children boneless wings expect bones in the chicken? Of course they don’t.
6. Outcome and Implications of the Lawsuit
The ruling ends Michael Berkheimer’s lawsuit against Wings on Brookwood, its supplier, and the farm. It sets a significant precedent in Ohio and beyond that the term “boneless” in food labeling can refer to a style or preparation method rather than a strict bone-free guarantee.
This case has influenced other lawsuits and corporate defenses involving boneless wings. For example, national chains like Buffalo Wild Wings have cited this ruling in their defense against claims of deceptive marketing about their boneless wings, arguing “common sense” supports the court’s interpretation.
7. What This Means for Consumers and Restaurants
- Consumers: Should be aware that “boneless wings” may still contain small bone fragments and consume such products with caution.
- Restaurants: Need not guarantee zero bones in boneless wings but should maintain reasonable safety and quality checks.
- Labeling and Marketing: The ruling highlights the importance of clear communication but allows some flexibility in descriptive terms used in menus.
8. Frequently Asked Questions
- Can boneless wings have bones?
- Yes, according to the Ohio Supreme Court, boneless wings can contain bones because “boneless” describes preparation style rather than a zero-bone guarantee.
- Was the restaurant liable for the injury?
- No, the court ruled that the restaurant and suppliers were not negligent as the presence of bones in boneless wings is a known and expected risk.
- Does this ruling apply outside Ohio?
- While the ruling is binding only in Ohio, it may influence similar cases and corporate policies nationwide.
Conclusion
The Ohio boneless chicken wings lawsuit clarified a key point in food law: descriptive terms like “boneless” refer more to preparation techniques than strict ingredient guarantees. While consumers should exercise caution, the legal precedent protects restaurants from liability for incidental bones in boneless wings, shaping the landscape of food labeling and consumer expectations going forward.
