What do you do when you take a bite of your favorite food and discover that there is something that could harm you in there? How would you feel if this meal lands you in the hospital, or if there is a possibility that it could kill you with a single bite? Well, how you feel is the same way Michael Berkheimer felt when he ordered a meal that led to a near death experience.
A Bone-afide Nightmare
For Michael Berkheimer, the year 2016 was one that he would hurriedly want to forget due to his unpleasant experience while eating a meal he ordered from a restaurant in Ohio. Apparently, Michael had ordered some boneless chicken wings from the restaurant but unknown to him, this meal contained the very thing he didn’t want; “bone”.
While eating his supposedly ‘boneless chicken’ a bone lodged in his throat and caused him an injury, which resulted in a severe infection that had him hospitalized. This experience was one that could have turned fatal, and for this, Michael decided to seek justice. He was suing the restaurant, the supplier, and the farm for negligence and misrepresentation of their food.
Fowl Play: The Michael Berkheimer Lawsuit
Although the lawsuit from Michael Berkheimer was legal and filed in accordance with the laws of the land, it was dismissed at the lower courts. This led him to take the suit to the Ohio Supreme Court to ensure his case was adequately attended to.
He claimed that the label “boneless chicken wings” was misleading and could have caused him more harm. He further went on to assert that the meal tag was false advertising as the defendants had initially failed to warn their customers about the presence of bone in their meal. This negligence he believed was detrimental to the customer, who would get carried away by the false advertisement and end up eating wings with bones.
This was a case not to be handled lightly, as it could have a lot of impact on the food industry and its operations. The matter was brought before the Ohio Supreme Court, and in a closely contested decision, the court ruled 4-3 in favor of the defendants. The court went on to claim that the term “boneless wings” is a culinary term and shouldn’t be confused with the absence of bone in a meal.
Justice Joseph T. Deters who sat for the majority said that the diners shouldn’t expect totally boneless chicken dishes even when the meals have a boneless label. This ruling however has sparked a lot of debate, with many claiming that the ruling neglects consumer protection and gives room for wrong food labeling.
Food for Thought: Dissent and Implications
Justice Michael P. Donnelly, who led the dissent, argued that the customers were not adequately represented. He also claimed that the term “boneless” means the absence of bone and that the majority weren't being sincere in their decision. This could be true, as the outcome of the case could have been different if it was decided by a jury.
With this ruling, it is believed that the court has ruled in favor of restaurants without giving enough consideration to consumer protection. Critics believe this would also set a precedent for the food industry to leverage on creative labeling, thereby leaving the customers guessing if they are getting what they initially wanted. In a nutshell, it could lead to more potential issues between restaurants and diners in the foreseeable future.