[TheDon]

“The dissenting justices called Deters’ reasoning “utter jabberwocky,” and said a jury should’ve been allowed to decide whether the restaurant was negligent in serving Berkheimer a piece of chicken that was advertised as boneless.

“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,” Justice Michael P. Donnelly wrote in dissent. “When they read the word ‘boneless,’ they think that it means ‘without bones,’ as do all sensible people.”

I agree with the dissent.

[hoosierham]

Words hsve meanings.

Should be no bones in boneless products.
I,too,agree with the dissenting judges.

[DiogenesLamp]

I agree with the dissent.

As do I, and I do not grasp how others can think it is reasonable for "boneless chicken" to have bones.

Is this like blank bullets having slugs in them?

[Dr. Franklin]

I agree with the dissent.

I do as well. If the chicken meat served wasn't boneless, it shouldn't have been advertised as such. Courts have problems with common sense any more. I am surprised they didn't just rule the man had no standign to sue, and duck the issue like they do in election cases.

[workerbee]

I agree with the dissent.

I do as well.