I hate few things more than bone-in wings. I have nothing against bone-in wings for others, but I personally can’t stand the feeling of bone and gristle. Particularly, I hate ordering boneless wings and then receiving bone-in ones accidentally or the hint of a bone anywhere near my food.
Which is why it’s such devastating news to hear that the Ohio Supreme Courts does not stand with my bone-hating comrades, such as one Michael Berkheimer. Berkheimer tried to sue a wing restaurant near him after swallowing a bone in supposedly boneless wings, but lost the case. This could set a horrible precedent for boneless wing fans getting food out moving forward.
Berkheimer’s Case
In 2016, Berkheimer went to the restaurant Wings on Brookwood in Hamilton, Ohio. He ordered his usual — garlic parmesan boneless wings — which he cut into two to three pieces before eating. While eating, a piece of meat supposedly went down the wrong pipe. While he wasn’t able to successfully cough anything up at the restaurant, he thought the problem was fixed…until he started to develop a fever and had trouble swallowing over the next few days. After going to the hospital, he discovered it was a bit more than an unchewed piece of meat. Doctors found a five centimeter long chicken bone lodged in his esophagus.
Understandably, Berkheimer decided to sue the restaurant. Not only did this go against the promise of boneless wings, but their food actively affected his health. I can promise that if I were in this situation, I likely would have done much worse.
The Court’s Decision
During the trial, the court looked back on a case from California, called Mexicali Rose v. Superior Court. They referenced the foreign versus natural debate, where a restaurant can be held accountable for items foreign to the food, like glass or wire, but not for things that were natural to the meat, such as bones. Apparently, patrons have to anticipate bones whenever meat is ordered, even if the item is declared boneless. Berkheimer understandably fought back on this point, but the court wouldn’t have it.
An exact quote from the court records was, “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.” Which, pardon my French, is the stupidest sh*t I’ve ever heard.
Linguistically, let’s break this down. In chicken fingers, “fingers” are the type of food you’re eating. While it’s not actually the chicken’s fingers, that’s simply the name of the product. On the other hand, in “boneless wings,” “boneless” is the descriptor, not the item itself. The equivalent of boneless in “chicken fingers” is not the fingers part, but the chicken. For the descriptor to be incorrect regarding boneless wings, you could technically make the argument that chicken fingers don’t actually have to be chicken, as that’s just the descriptor for the fingers.
This type of decision from the court makes me incredibly angry, as I believe that there are plenty of restaurants today operating with very lax standards. As someone who worked in a restaurant during parts of the COVID-19 outbreak, I saw this firsthand. People have made entire series off of exposing this, like Keith Lee and Gordon Ramsey. When the courts side with the restaurant instead of the customer in a case like this, all they’re doing is allowing cooks to not do their jobs properly. It’s insulting as someone who loves eating out and scary that I can’t necessarily trust the food I’m ordering. Michael Berkheimer, you didn’t deserve the ruling your case was given, and I hope one day you’re able to receive proper justice.