An entirely bone-headed decision

American society’s separation from common sense and logic took yet another big step last week.

This time it’s because of an amazingly bizarre decision made by the Ohio Supreme Court. By a 4-3 vote, the court deemed that boneless chicken wings don’t have to be boneless.

Yep, thanks to four pompous, arrogant people who are actually tasked with interpreting law (and apparently vocabulary) on an official basis, we now have a new definition of boneless. No longer can we go by the word’s long-accepted meaning as is listed in recognized and respected word-defining sources.

For example, thanks to these misguided individuals, the definition of boneless in the Cambridge Dictionary (the most popular source, and realistically the most esteemed) is basically inaccurate: “Without a bone.” Cambridge even uses chicken in its example of using the adjective: “A boneless breast of chicken.”

The Oxford Dictionary is also mistaken, because it says, “a piece of meat or fish having had the bones removed.”

Wiktionary is also wrong now, because it indicates that boneless means, “Without bones, especially as pertaining to meat or poultry prepared for eating.”

The startling situation was made possible when a man was dining with his wife and friends at a wing joint in Hamilton, Ohio, and ordered boneless wings. As can sometimes happen to anyone, he had piece of meat “go down the wrong way.”

After becoming ill, he went to an emergency room a few days later, and a doctor discovered a long, thin bone that had torn his esophagus and caused an infection.

The man sued the restaurant, saying it failed to provide a warning that so-called “boneless wings” (which, of course, consist of skinless and typically boneless breast meat) could contain bones. The restaurant’s supplier and the farm that produced the chicken were also named in the lawsuit, which claimed all defendants were negligent.

But the suit was shot down by what seems to me to be one of the stupidest decisions in the history of courtroom nonsense. The four judicial rocket scientists who voted that boneless doesn’t mean boneless were Justices Joseph Deters, Sharon Kennedy, Patrick Fischer and Patrick DeWine – all Republicans. The three people in the room who displayed an ability to recognize reality were Justices Michael Donnelly, Melody Stewart and Jennifer Brunner – all Democrats.

It was mainly Deters who argued against sensibility and actually blamed the plaintiff for not being more careful. He claimed boneless was actually a “cooking style,” not a physical form, and said the man should have “guarded against the injurious substance in the food.”

“Bones are a natural part of chicken,” Deters wrote, “so you should bank on them in wings sold as boneless.”

Wait, what? I should “bank on” bones being in my boneless chicken? That’s craziness!

The three Justices on the losing side of the vote called the decision “utter jabberwocky.” Donnelly didn’t hold back when roasting his four cohorts’ irrational behavior and outright lunacy.

“The result in this case is another nail in the coffin of the American jury system,” he said. “The majority opinion makes a factual determination to ensure that a jury does not have a chance to apply something the majority opinion lacks — common sense.

“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. When they read the word ‘boneless,’ they think that it means ‘without bones,’ as do all sensible people.”

Roger that. When I hear or read boneless, I think of something that is, in fact, “without bones.”

I could never have come up with the notion that boneless is a “cooking style.” No, it’s much simpler than that; boneless means boneless.

Donnelly went on to point out that the result could have ripple effects. To illustrate, he said the court’s four self-appointed wordsmiths seemed to have determined that “allergy-free” food could still contain a given allergen because that is “natural” to the food. That obviously presents a serious challenge to people who need to remain nut, dairy or gluten-free.

I can’t stand this. It’s like, “Hey, look: It’s on you, people. You just need to be more careful regarding what you believe about the food you order when you go out to eat.”

Incredible.

Anyway, with people in place whose job it is to interpret law in an official capacity acting this foolish, I’d say it’s apparent there’s not much space left preventing us from going over the edge. Honestly, when boneless “officially” doesn’t mean boneless, where are we supposed to go from there?

“A four-person majority willing to declare ‘boneless’ actually means ‘with bones’ should scare the hell out of everyone,” said former Ohio Democratic Party chair David Pepper.

Yes, it should.

Doug Davison is a writer, photographer and newsroom assistant for the Houston Herald. Email: ddavison@houstonherald.com.

The post An entirely bone-headed decision appeared first on Houston Herald .