A man who fell ill after a piece of bone from his order of "boneless" chicken wings became lodged in his throat and caused an infection, has had his case against both the restaurant and the supplier of the chicken dismissed by Ohio's Supreme Court, which agreed with the decision made by the lower courts. The court ruled against him 4-3.
From the article:
The court on Thursday ruled that "boneless wing" refers to "cooking style" and is not to be taken literally.
The 4-3 ruling was peppered with dissent, with one judge calling the majority opinion "utter jabberwocky".
But a majority of the judges considered being cautious of bones in a boneless wing to be common sense.
Writing for the majority, Justice Joseph T Deters said: "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."
...
However, the dissenting justices felt like the decision should have sat with a jury and not with the court's justices.
Justice Michael P Donnelly wrote in dissent: “The question must be asked: Does anyone really believe that the parents in this country who feed their young children boneless wings or chicken tenders or chicken nuggets or chicken fingers expect bones to be in the chicken? Of course they don’t.
“When they read the word ‘boneless,’ they think that it means ‘without bones,’ as do all sensible people.”
@Hauler
From the article:
The court on Thursday ruled that "boneless wing" refers to "cooking style" and is not to be taken literally.
The 4-3 ruling was peppered with dissent, with one judge calling the majority opinion "utter jabberwocky".
But a majority of the judges considered being cautious of bones in a boneless wing to be common sense.
Writing for the majority, Justice Joseph T Deters said: "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."
...
However, the dissenting justices felt like the decision should have sat with a jury and not with the court's justices.
Justice Michael P Donnelly wrote in dissent: “The question must be asked: Does anyone really believe that the parents in this country who feed their young children boneless wings or chicken tenders or chicken nuggets or chicken fingers expect bones to be in the chicken? Of course they don’t.
“When they read the word ‘boneless,’ they think that it means ‘without bones,’ as do all sensible people.”
Boneless chicken wings can have bones, Ohio court rules
The ruling ends a lawsuit filed by a man who fell ill after swallowing a piece of bone from his boneless order.
www.bbc.co.uk
@Hauler
