Disney/Raglan Road Sued Over Food Allergy Death

[Mr. Pusskers]

I am in no way know law or a lawyer or claim to be. Someone lost their life. That has to be in the millions of dollar amount. Honestly if this a spouse be Husband or wife, If I had that kind of money like Disney, it would be we are going to pay off your house and will have all the children's college covered for such a terrible loss of life.

But a very good comment was made here, was this a true accident or was this intentional. If intentional and proven that way, then look out.

Bottom line is I feel extremely sorry for the family's loss. To me that is the most important part, and no amount of money can cover that and the feelings of what the family is going through now and how it will change their life going forward.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

I doubt there was an arbitration clause at McDonalds like there is when the husband signed up for Disney+. For all the opinions that Disney is in the wrong on the Raglan Road guest death , it will unfortunately fall on deaf ears because of the arbitration clause written in black and white. Whether the husband of the deceased doctor read it or not is irrelevant. Read before you sign and when you sign you agree to the terms. It can be perceived as gutless but then again running a business sometimes is.

I wonder if the terms and conditions will be scrutinized. We've all "agreed" to terms and conditions when using various products, and they're usually dozens or hundreds of pages long. Most people don't read them.

Would a court rule that burying such a clause in terms and conditions is basically hiding it, or tricking the consumer?

I asked a lawyer friend this once and he said there isn't a definitive answer. It could go either way.

 

[Tom P.]

I doubt there was an arbitration clause at McDonalds like there is when the husband signed up for Disney+. For all the opinions that Disney is in the wrong on the Raglan Road guest death , it will unfortunately fall on deaf ears because of the arbitration clause written in black and white. Whether the husband of the deceased doctor read it or not is irrelevant. Read before you sign and when you sign you agree to the terms. It can be perceived as gutless but then again running a business sometimes is.

Arbitration clauses, even well-written ones, are routinely ignored by courts. There is very little chance that a court determines that an agreement you must accept to use Disney+ or purchase tickets to Epcot has any relevance to visiting a restaurant that is run by a third party and located in Disney Springs, where you do not have to purchase tickets or agree to anything to enter. The argument that Disney is making here is absurd on its face. They are just throwing everything at the wall and hoping that something sticks.

Disney is far more likely to succeed on the merits of their argument that they are not responsible because they are merely the landlord in this case and do not own or operate the restaurant. That would not end the lawsuit, but it would make it against Raglan Road only and remove Disney from it. I think that is the far more likely outcome. There is basically no chance a court forces this to arbitration based on Disney's argument here.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Disney reverses course on bid to block wrongful death lawsuit by widower who had Disney+​

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/19/business/disney-arbitration-wrongful-death-lawsuit-intl-hnk/index.html

 

[Lilofan]

Arbitration clauses, even well-written ones, are routinely ignored by courts. There is very little chance that a court determines that an agreement you must accept to use Disney+ or purchase tickets to Epcot has any relevance to visiting a restaurant that is run by a third party and located in Disney Springs, where you do not have to purchase tickets or agree to anything to enter. The argument that Disney is making here is absurd on its face. They are just throwing everything at the wall and hoping that something sticks.

Disney is far more likely to succeed on the merits of their argument that they are not responsible because they are merely the landlord in this case and do not own or operate the restaurant. That would not end the lawsuit, but it would make it against Raglan Road only and remove Disney from it. I think that is the far more likely outcome. There is basically no chance a court forces this to arbitration based on Disney's argument here.

A number of dining options inside Epcot is run by third party.

 

[FutureCEO]

Disney is dropping the bid to stop the lawsuit according to the BBC

 

[networkpro]

It's sad to have a loss of life, but in a legal case establishing causality and facts is key. Is there a record of the customer stating the allergens (dairy, nuts), did that order reflect those, what's the process for processing allergy foods, was it followed, etc. Finger pointing and he said/she said doesn't go very far in court and no matter what the results or any resulting trial, someone's dead and won't return. Having a known issue with food, you accept risk no matter what.

 

[Dead2009]

Apparently Disney waived the arbitration

 

[Doberge]

That's good news for the plaintiff. This will settle before trial but it gives the plaintiff more leverage when negotiating with Disney specifically.

 

[GimpYancIent]

This case is looking more and more like Disney will settle and move on.

 

[Tom P.]

A number of dining options inside Epcot is run by third party.

Which has nothing to do with this situation. You cannot get into Epcot without buying a ticket and, therefore, agreeing to certain terms and conditions as part of the purchase. This is a restaurant in Disney Springs. Anyone can go to Disney Springs. You don't need a ticket, an account, or to agree to anything. You just show up. There's no way this arbitration clause would have been enforced in that scenario.

Regardless, it is now a moot point, as Disney is dropping their bid to force arbitration.

Also, the fact that Josh D'Amaro, and not some unknown PR or legal person, announced that Disney is changing course, shows just how massive the backlash against Disney has been. I suspect there will be a settlement forthcoming.

 

[Jon81uk]

Disney is far more likely to succeed on the merits of their argument that they are not responsible because they are merely the landlord in this case and do not own or operate the restaurant. That would not end the lawsuit, but it would make it against Raglan Road only and remove Disney from it. I think that is the far more likely outcome. There is basically no chance a court forces this to arbitration based on Disney's argument here.

Yep I don’t see why Disney would be at fault at all. Would someone be taking action against Simon Property Group when they got ill dining at Five Guys at the Florida Mall? I don’t see why a landlord would be involved in the actions of staff they do not employ.

 

[Chi84]

Yep I don’t see why Disney would be at fault at all. Would someone be taking action against Simon Property Group when they got ill dining at Five Guys at the Florida Mall? I don’t see why a landlord would be involved in the actions of staff they do not employ.

There’s another thread on this. Lots of pearl-clutching but also explains the legal theories against Disney https://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads/wrongful-death-lawsuit-and-disneys-scary-attempt.984477/

 

[Phonedave]

But a very good comment was made here, was this a true accident or was this intentional. If intentional and proven that way, then look out.

I missed that somewhere. Intentional by whom ?

 

[Chi84]

I missed that somewhere. Intentional by whom ?

I missed that too.

 

[Tom P.]

Intentional? I have not seen any mention of even an accusation of it being intentional. Where did that come from? If it were intentional, that would be murder, which would be a criminal matter.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

You cannot get into Epcot without buying a ticket and, therefore, agreeing to certain terms and conditions as part of the purchase.

The terms on the theme park tickets do not include the arbitration clause that is part of Disney+.

Yep I don’t see why Disney would be at fault at all. Would someone be taking action against Simon Property Group when they got ill dining at Five Guys at the Florida Mall? I don’t see why a landlord would be involved in the actions of staff they do not employ.

The difference would be - Disney owns and operates the majority (or close to the majority) of restaurants on WDW Property - and there is no way to tell which ones are Disney operated or 3rd party. When you click on the Raglan Road menu on the Disney app - it appears the same way disney owned restaurants appear - including wording about “cast members”

Intentional? I have not seen any mention of even an accusation of it being intentional. Where did that come from? If it were intentional, that would be murder, which would be a criminal matter.

While I haven’t heard anything about this case, I’ve sadly heard of many chefs / restaurant staffs ignoring allergy and diet requests. It shouldn’t be ruled out.

 

[Chef idea Mickey`=]

While I haven’t heard anything about this case, I’ve sadly heard of many chefs / restaurant staffs ignoring allergy and diet requests. It shouldn’t be ruled out.

I have already seen at one signature Epcot restaurant destination where they knew someone had made allergy requests but like purposely neglected it only for the person to have to address it to them again especially when they are cooking the food in front of them. If it's not that then you have someone cooking mocking about it at the guest or others laughing when you ask about an allergy request like it's a joke a game.. a person who has allergies there's no benefit for them for it to be a joke ever.

 

[Phonedave]

I have already seen at one signature Epcot restaurant destination where they knew someone had made allergy requests but like purposely neglected it only for the person to have to address it to them again especially when they are cooking the food in front of them. If it's not that then you have someone cooking mocking about it at the guest or others laughing when you ask about an allergy request like it's a joke a game.. a person who has allergies there's no benefit for them for it to be a joke ever.

There is a difference between ignoring a allergy request and intentionally ignoring one because you want to cause harm to the person.

I know that it does happen that sometimes people use "allergic" to mean they don't like something. To a kitchen, that is a issue. If somebody has an allergy, they have to use a separate, cleaned, area to prepare the food to prevent any cross contamination. If they are just leaving it out, they don't have to do any special prep - they can just leave the ingredient out.

My wife is allergic to mushrooms. If she eats mushrooms in any significant quantity she gets cramps and bloating and well, time in the bathroom is in order. However she is not SO allergic that a trace of mushroom will set her off. She explains this to the wait staff. She will ask if a dish has mushrooms, and if it does, can they be left out. She explains it is an allergy, but not a serious one. No need to prepare the dish in a special mushroom free zone - just don't add any.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

There is a difference between ignoring an allergy request and intentionally ignoring one because you want to cause harm to the person.

That’s the difference between manslaughter and murder correct?