• halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Yeah, no. It’s clear you didn’t look at the actual situation. The bone in question was almost an inch and a half long.

    This wasn’t a small piece of bone, like a sliver or splinter or fragment like they keep wanting to refer to it. This was straight up just a bone the manufacturer didn’t remove. This is clear negligence regardless of what one bullshit judge says.

    Tiny pieces of bone will get through manufacturing. This isn’t that despite what they want to say. That characterization is bullshit on the level of the McDonald’s hot coffee propaganda.

    • FireTower@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      I agree with the overall idea, but this wasn’t one judge it was the majority (4-3).

      Even when all parties do the best we can reasonably expect on occasion a bone will slip through. But when that happens and someone suffers injury because of it they deserve restitution if they specifically ordered a boneless product.

      The court didn’t look at the breach of warranty claim. Which was probably the best argument in this case.

      • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        You again seem to be ignoring the fact it wasn’t really a bone fragment. It was an inch and a half long bone piece. There are entire bone-in wings that size. That’s not something anyone would expect in a boneless wing.

        Is there a reason you seem to be intentionally ignoring that detail?

        • FireTower@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Again? This is the first I’ve replied to you. I think you misunderstood my position.

          My only issue was with you claiming it was one judge not four.

    • prime_number_314159@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      There’s a lot of space between a food that’s dangerous to touch, and foods that require effort to eat safely.

      A warning that the coffee is hot isn’t enough to meaningfully disclose that the coffee will do severe damage if you touch it, while a disclaimer that boneless wings may contain bone fragments does enough to disclose that there may be bone fragments. Lots of other foods have bones and bone fragments, and are eaten in near perfect safety very frequently. There are no other foods routinely served so hot that they will cause burns, specifically because they are always unsafe.

      • SoylentBlake@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Man idk, Im able to prepare my chicken, beef, pork or fish in a manner that ensures no bones slip thru. This can be especially trying with certain fish. But if I can do it, so can a company. If a company can’t figure out how to do that and sell it at a price point they want, maybe they just shouldn’t be selling that.

        We don’t see fugu on the shelves next to deli made California rolls. tragically

        • bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Yeah but you do it by hand, and the manufacturer of the boneless wings want to continue to do it in a cheap way with machinery.

          Do you really want them to spend more money? /S