An Ohio court ruled Thursday that customers shouldn't be surprised if boneless chicken wings actually contain bones.

The Ohio Supreme Court's split decision follows a lawsuit filed by Michael Burkheimer against a local chicken wing joint in Hamilton, Ohio, after he allegedly ordered “boneless” wings that contained bones. according to New York Post (NYP).

According to The New York Times, Berkheimer apparently bit into the wing and felt something strange in his pit of his stomach, and was rushed to the hospital three days later with a fever, where doctors discovered that a long, thin bone had torn his esophagus, causing an infection, and Berkheimer later sued the restaurant for failing to warn him that the wing contained a bone, the paper reported.

The New York Times reported that the lawsuit also names the farm and supplier that produced the chicken, and that Berkheimer alleges negligence.

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled 4-3 on Thursday that “boneless wings” are a cooking technique and that Berkheimer should have been more careful because “it is common knowledge that chicken has bones,” the Post reported. (Related: In unusual ruling, judge rules tacos are Mexican sandwiches: report).

“A customer who sees 'boneless chicken wings' on a menu is not likely to assume that the dish is made with chicken wings, any more than a customer who eats 'chicken fingers' is likely to assume that the restaurant is guaranteeing that the dish is boneless,” Judge Joseph T. Deters reportedly wrote in the ruling.

The dissenting justices said Deters' arguments were “complete nonsense,” according to a New York Times report.

'Boneless' chicken wings may still have bones, Ohio Supreme Court rules in rejecting restaurant lawsuit over choking death https://t.co/BmVeUDhmaQ pic.twitter.com/xeoNVo82Nk

— New York Post (@nypost) July 25, 2024

“The question must be asked: Does anyone in this country really believe that parents who feed boneless chicken wings, chicken tenders, chicken nuggets, and chicken fingers to their young children expect there to be bones in the chicken? Of course they don't,” Justice Michael P. Donnelly reportedly wrote in dissent. “When they read the word 'boneless,' they, like all sensible people, assume it means 'boneless.'”

The dissenting justices also argued that the jury should have decided whether a local Ohio restaurant was negligent for serving chicken on the bone even though it was advertised as “boneless,” The New York Times reported.