According to the criteria of
The justification they found to exempt the restaurant of the guilt of the case is that, since The piece of bone in question was three centimeters in size.any rational person could have noticed its presence before eating it, according to the court document.
In that regard, both the aforementioned Court and the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, through which the case also originally passed, They agreed that the restaurant did not breach its duty rules. customer care.
Speaking to Business Insider, Berkheimer’s lawyers expressed disappointment with the resolution of the casecalling into question the value and meaning of the word “boneless” that was used during the trial, even though the authorities verified that it should not be a guarantee that the chicken wing did not contain bones.
What the Court’s ruling says about the lawsuit over a bone-in chicken wing in the United States
The Court of Appeals’ ruling explained the reasons that led it to side with the restaurant and not the plaintiff: “A bone that size would have taken up almost the entire third bite of the boneless wing.“, the document begins by saying.
And then he adds: “We conclude that a reasonable person could have anticipated and taken precautions against a bone of similar size. hidden in a bite-sized piece of chicken,” placing all blame for the situation on Berkheimer himself.
#boneless #chicken #wings #bone #unprecedented #legal #complaint