I agree with the dissent in this case. What kind of Alice in wonderland bullshit are we living in where when you say boneless, you actually mean “THERE MAY BE BONES OVER AN INCH LONG IN THEM!”??

Words have meaning. It really shows how much these fuckers are cutting corners. If anything it’s negligence for allowing a product such as this to reach the customer, get lodged in his throat, slice open his esophagus, get infected, and require two surgeries.

If the boneless wings had glass in them, would they be held negligent?

Here’s the bit of dissent from the article.

"Dissenting Justices argued that a jury should have been allowed to determine whether the restaurant and suppliers were negligent, and called Deters’ reasoning “utter jabberwocky.”

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