Ohio Supreme Court Rules on Bone Found in Boneless Wing

Recently, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled on a unique and highly publicized case involving a bone found in a "boneless" wing. This case has drawn significant attention due to its peculiar subject matter and the broader implications it holds for consumer protection and food labeling practices. It exemplifies the delicate balance the law must strike between protecting business interests and ensuring consumer safety.

Case Background

In April 2016, Michael Berkheimer ordered boneless wings at Wings on Brookwood, a restaurant in Butler County. Berkheimer cut each boneless wing into smaller pieces before eating. After consuming one piece, he experienced discomfort in his throat. In the following days, he developed a fever and nausea, prompting a visit to the emergency room. Doctors discovered a 1 1/2-inch chicken bone lodged in his throat, resulting in heart and lung damage and a partially paralyzed diaphragm.  In 2017, Berkheimer sued the restaurant owners, as well as the chicken supplier and processor. The case was eventually appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio.

Legal Concepts at Issue

The Court of Appeals previously determined that the bone was a natural part of chicken and thus the restaurant did not breach its duty of care to its customer. The Appeals Court essentially decided that consumers should recognize the inherent risk of bones in chicken, regardless of how the product is labeled.

Conversely, Berkheimer argued that a reasonable person would not expect a bone in a boneless wing and, therefore, would not think to inspect the meat for bones. He contended that the restaurant and supplier were negligent by offering a food product labeled as boneless while knowing it could contain bones or bone fragments.  Mr. Berkheimer appealed the matter to the Ohio Supreme Court.

The Court's Decision

In a 4-3 decision, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled in favor of the restaurant. The court concluded that while the term "boneless wings" might not be entirely accurate, it did not constitute negligence under Ohio law. The court noted that "boneless wings" is a commonly accepted descriptor for a specific type of chicken product, and reasonable consumers are unlikely to be misled by this term.

The court also emphasized the importance of context in labeling disputes. They found that the restaurant's menu and advertising provided sufficient context for consumers to understand what they were purchasing. However, the court suggested that businesses should strive for greater clarity in their labeling practices to avoid potential confusion.

Implications and Future Considerations

The ruling in this case has significant implications for the food industry and consumer protection efforts. It highlights the ongoing tension between industry practices and consumer expectations, particularly in the realm of food labeling.

For businesses, the case underscores the importance of transparency and clarity in product descriptions. While the court ruled in favor of the restaurant chain, it also suggested that more accurate labeling could help prevent similar disputes in the future.

For consumers, the case serves as a reminder to scrutinize product labels and ask questions when in doubt. As food labeling practices continue to evolve, consumer awareness and vigilance will be crucial in ensuring that businesses maintain honest and transparent practices.

This case sets a precedent for how courts might handle similar disputes in the future, emphasizing the need for clear communication between businesses and consumers to avoid misunderstandings and ensure consumer safety.