In 2024, the Ohio Supreme Court made headlines with a ruling that left many puzzled: “boneless” chicken wings can legally contain bones. This landmark 4–3 decision sparked debates about food labeling, consumer expectations, and legal definitions. Here’s an extensive breakdown—over 1,000 words—on what happened, why it matters, and what it could mean going forward.
1. What Happened — A Man, a Bone, and the Courts
In 2016, Michael Berkheimer ordered “boneless wings” at a restaurant in Hamilton, Ohio. After cutting them into pieces as usual, he felt something lodged in his throat. A bone was later found puncturing his esophagus, causing severe infection, multiple surgeries, and long recovery.
Berkheimer sued the restaurant and its suppliers, arguing the “boneless” label was misleading. However, both the trial and appeals courts ruled against him, stating a bone is a natural part of chicken and that reasonable consumers should expect this possibility.
The case eventually reached the Ohio Supreme Court. In a narrow 4–3 ruling delivered in mid-2024, the court upheld that decision—“boneless wings” describes a style, not a guarantee. Essentially, if bones are part of chicken, consumers should guard against finding them—even in products labeled “boneless.”
2. The Legal Reasoning: When “Boneless” Doesn’t Mean Without Bones
The majority ruled that:
- Boneless is a cooking style, not an assurance: Like chicken fingers, the term doesn’t promise the literal absence of “fingers.”
- Bones are natural, not foreign: Under Ohio law, the presence of a natural part of food doesn’t automatically indicate negligence.
- Consumers share responsibility: Reasonable diners should expect natural parts like bones in meat—even when labeled boneless.
The dissent, however, was fierce. Justice Michael P. Donnelly called the reasoning “utter jabberwocky,” arguing that when people see “boneless,” they reasonably expect no bones—and that the jury should decide the matter, not the court.
3. Who Said What — The Arguments in Detail
- Majority view: “Boneless wings” is a conventional term for trimmed breast meat—it describes presentation, not purity. Consumers are aware chickens have bones.
- Dissenting view: No reasonable person expects bones in “boneless” food. Allowing this ruling skips the jury and trivializes consumer trust.
The majority emphasized legal precedent: negligence hinges on whether the substance was foreign or natural and if the consumer could have reasonably expected it—here, a bone in a chicken product is natural.
4. The Backlash — What People Are Saying
The decision has been sharply criticized. The term “boneless” seems rendered meaningless for many. One Ohio lawmaker criticized the ruling publicly and expressed interest in drafting legislation to clarify what “boneless” must legally mean.
Advocates for clearer consumer expectations argue this ruling undermines trust in food labeling and risks public safety. On the other side, the ruling appeals to the concept of informed dining—reasonable vigilance—and acknowledgment that truly perfect food is not guaranteed.
5. What This Means Going Forward
For consumers:
- Expect that “boneless” food might still contain bones.
- Stay cautious—cut pieces first if unsure.
- Labeling ambiguity makes vigilance more important than ever.
For restaurants and food suppliers:
- The ruling shields against negligence claims—unless there’s tampering or foreign objects.
- Still, best practice suggests adding disclaimers to reduce misunderstanding and liability risk.
For lawmakers:
The split court decision may spur legislation—either to reinforce this interpretation or offer consumer protections and clarity around “boneless.”
6. Summary Table for Quick Reference
| Topic | Outcome | Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Ohio Supreme Court Ruling | Boneless wings may contain bones | Customers cannot expect absolute bone-free products. |
| Legal Reasoning | “Boneless” denotes style, bones are natural | No negligence without foreign substance or lack of consumer expectation. |
| Consumer Expectations | Boneless ≠ bone-free | Consumers bear responsibility for vigilance. |
| Restaurant Liability | Non-negligent under this ruling | Still advisable to label clearly or warn. |
| Future Policy | Possible legislative clarification | Lawmakers may define “boneless” legally. |
7. Frequently Asked Questions
Can bone fragments still be found in “boneless” chicken?
Yes. Courts ruled that bones are natural, and consumers should expect them—even in boneless products.
Does the ruling apply outside Ohio?
It’s specific to Ohio law—but the logic may influence other states or federal rulings on food labeling expectations.
Can I still sue if I get hurt?
Only if the harmful part was foreign (not naturally expected)—like plastic, metal, or deliberate contamination.
Is this final?
Yes, for now. But legislation could change how “boneless” is defined moving forward.
8. Final Thoughts
The Ohio ruling redefines our understanding of “boneless.” It clarifies the legal side but disrupts everyday expectations. As consumers, restaurants, and lawmakers respond, clarity—and perhaps new laws—are likely to follow.