Wrongful Death Lawsuit and Disney's Scary Attempt

[flynnibus]

Learn what the word "majority" means. It is obvious you have no legal background.
I doubt the plaintiff has had to pay his lawyer anything so far.

It’s obvious you are just gonna spew your generalizations regardless.

 

[Splash4eva]

They are fighting over $50k when someone died!? Give them $100k - issue the biggest apology ever and then charge Raglan Road’s parent company $100k extra over the next 4 years.

I think the lawsuit was for “at least” i read article the other day. Either way they should be ashamed even for a lawyer to attempt this is a disgrace

 

[WDWFREAK53]

Can't you put your allergies on your Disney account somewhere so that the restaurants know before you arrive? I know in the past we've gone to restaurants and the waiter has mentioned my wife's allergies and we didn't need to tell them. Does this not happen at the 3rd Party restaurants even though the reservation system is connected like the Disney restaurants?

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Can't you put your allergies on your Disney account somewhere so that the restaurants know before you arrive? I know in the past we've gone to restaurants and the waiter has mentioned my wife's allergies and we didn't need to tell them. Does this not happen at the 3rd Party restaurants even though the reservation system is connected like the Disney restaurants?

When booking through the app or website, there is an option to check off any allergies that apply to anyone in your dining party. You have to do this for each reservation - it isn't linked to an individual's user profile.

 

[Dear Prudence]

The couple in question chose the restaurant because it was supposed to have been the most allergies friendly. They asked multiple people multiple times if they could be accommodated and were assured that the food was safe.

I hope that guys takes them to the cleaners.

 

[Chi84]

The agreement with D+ is called a “contract of adhesion,” which is basically a contract drafted by one side with little if any input from the other. A good lawyer should hopefully be able to persuade an even somewhat sympathetic judge that the arbitration clause is unconscionable and thus unenforceable. That being said, a contract is a contract and it’s up to her attorneys to show why it should not be enforced.

I get that an agreement for arbitration, even in a contract of adhesion, is enforceable. But the arbitration clause has to be susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute.

I doubt any judge is going to find this lawsuit within the scope of the arbitration agreement in the Disney+ subscriber terms. It's so far a reach that there almost has to be another reason Disney is filing this motion.

 

[Club Cooloholic]

It’s obvious you are just gonna spew your generalizations regardless.

I apologize if it got contentious, it's silly to let it get like that. You and I have agreed on things before, this is one where I guess we don't. I can't defend Disney trying to pull in the subscription agreement to ask, force, persuade(whatever word one wants to use) the judge to move it to arbitration, but I am sure more will come to light from the case.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Their relationship with restaurants is VERY TYPICAL of large resorts.

I disagree. There are some similarities but enough differences that make this pretty unique.

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

The couple in question chose the restaurant because it was supposed to have been the most allergies friendly. They asked multiple people multiple times if they could be accommodated and were assured that the food was safe.

I hope that guys takes them to the cleaners.

Yeah, I expect this to ultimately settle for a large sum.

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

I get that an agreement for arbitration, even in a contract of adhesion, is enforceable. But the arbitration clause has to be susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute.

I doubt any judge is going to find this lawsuit within the scope of the arbitration agreement in the Disney+ subscriber terms. It's so far a reach that there almost has to be another reason Disney is filing this motion.

Honestly I suspect it’s a brain drain at their in-house legal department and someone doing something dumb. The last 4 years have seen a lot of attorneys retire and there is a huge loss of institutional knowledge there just like everywhere else. Couple that with the fact that Disney does not pay wages commensurate with equivalent in-house counsel at other large corporations, and you end up with stupid PR/strategy mistakes like this one.

 

[Dear Prudence]

Yeah, I expect this to ultimately settle for a large sum.

I know that it's not about the money, and the 50k is probably just to cover funeral expenses and stuff, and I know money can't bring her back--- but, hot damn, I hope he wins.

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

I know that it's not about the money, and the 50k is probably just to cover funeral expenses and stuff, and I know money can't bring her back--- but, hot damn, I hope he wins.

$50k is the “at least” part of the lawsuit. It’s going to be far in excess of that. It looks like Raglan road is not owned by a corporation but rather is an indie restaurant. I hope they have good liability coverage…

 

[flynnibus]

The argument posed by Disney is that the husband signed up for Disney+ that subscriber agreement had the arbitration clause, and since he used MDE, he accepted terms that scoped in the rest of his party, not just himself.

Disney outlines their argument for why the Subscriber agreement holds as a valid arbitration agreement, including it's implementation and the consumer's consent.. but I still have a hard time seeing how the court will accept that the agreement entered for the D+ services... will be applicable to an interaction for a completely different interaction on a completely different product and service... with the only continuity being the parent company. That's where the lawyering comes in.. but I sure hope courts don't uphold the idea that an agreement for product X can bind you in a completely different space elsewhere... only based on the ownership hierarchy.

Luckily the plantiff's attorney points out the problems with the notion that they are being held to terms (for MDE) that were not available to them for the subscriber agreement (where the actual arbitration clause is).. and hopefully that will be a foundation for why the arbitration clause isn't applicable to the raglan road incident. The attorney also claims the subscriber agreement text is only for the D+ (and ESPN+) service, not others.

While the response is full of outlandish language.. they do seem to take things on point by point and try to attack the narrative of the MDE usage linking the spouse to his prior arbitration agreement as well as the validity of the arbitration agreement.

Hopefully the judge will side with them on this matter... but unless something comes out further that implicates Disney in the kitchen operation, hopefully they will be excluded from the conclusion about the events that lead to the lady's death.

 

[Chi84]

The argument posed by Disney is that the husband signed up for Disney+ that subscriber agreement had the arbitration clause, and since he used MDE, he accepted terms that scoped in the rest of his party, not just himself.

Disney outlines their argument for why the Subscriber agreement holds as a valid arbitration agreement, including it's implementation and the consumer's consent.. but I still have a hard time seeing how the court will accept that the agreement entered for the D+ services... will be applicable to an interaction for a completely different interaction on a completely different product and service... with the only continuity being the parent company. That's where the lawyering comes in.. but I sure hope courts don't uphold the idea that an agreement for product X can bind you in a completely different space elsewhere... only based on the ownership hierarchy.

Luckily the plantiff's attorney points out the problems with the notion that they are being held to terms (for MDE) that were not available to them for the subscriber agreement (where the actual arbitration clause is).. and hopefully that will be a foundation for why the arbitration clause isn't applicable to the raglan road incident. The attorney also claims the subscriber agreement text is only for the D+ (and ESPN+) service, not others.

View attachment 809848

While the response is full of outlandish language.. they do seem to take things on point by point and try to attack the narrative of the MDE usage linking the spouse to his prior arbitration agreement as well as the validity of the arbitration agreement.

Hopefully the judge will side with them on this matter... but unless something comes out further that implicates Disney in the kitchen operation, hopefully they will be excluded from the conclusion about the events that lead to the lady's death.

All we have now are pleadings. There will eventually be evidence that leads to appropriate rulings.

Without knowing more, I’m not sure how anyone can favor a particular outcome.

 

[DisneyCane]

The couple in question chose the restaurant because it was supposed to have been the most allergies friendly. They asked multiple people multiple times if they could be accommodated and were assured that the food was safe.

I hope that guys takes them to the cleaners.

The lawsuit makes these claims. They are not yet established facts. It is also not established that the reaction she had was definitely due to food consumed at Raglan Road. They state in the suit that after dinner she went shopping with her mother-in-law and then separated from her mother-in-law before the allergic reaction. It is possible that she consumed something containing the allergens after dinner. The attorneys for Raglan Road and Disney would be incompetent if they didn't investigate this possibility.

I know that it's not about the money, and the 50k is probably just to cover funeral expenses and stuff, and I know money can't bring her back--- but, hot damn, I hope he wins.

The $50k amount has nothing to do with what the Plaintiff is seeking. It is simply to determine which court hears the case. $8,000-$50,000 is heard in a County civil court and above $50,000 is heard in a circuit court.

Your argument here isn’t very sound. Just because their visibility and customer exposure is similar or common that doesn’t necessarily equate to the intertwining or constraints on the operations as a whole being similar/common. For instance… does Disney constrain what kind of menu options they can serve? Does Disney have additional staff training requirements they impose? Is disney part of any auditing or compliance checking?

The possibilities go well beyond the commercial integration of marketing and sales…. Because disney is known to be such a control freak when it comes to who it allows inside the gates.

Landlords constrain menu choices all the time. For example, if an Italian restaurant leases space in a strip center, there will be a clause in the lease that prevents another restaurant in the same strip center from having a substantially similar menu. The landlord will put that restriction into leases for other restaurants.

The questions you ask are valid and I don't think any of us know the answers unless we have seen the leases between Disney and tenants at Disney Springs.

Again, the website AS IT EXISTED at the time, referenced Disney cast members and an allergy friendly menu. Is that typical of a Las Vegas Casino?

The website references that now as well. It also says that they can not guarantee that there won't be any allergens in the food even if you talk to a Cast Member or the Chef. I just took a quick look at the website for Caesars Palace. I don't see any allergy friendly menus but I can order food from independent restaurants on the Caesars Palace website and also make reservations.

 

[Dear Prudence]

The lawsuit makes these claims. They are not yet established facts. It is also not established that the reaction she had was definitely due to food consumed at Raglan Road. They state in the suit that after dinner she went shopping with her mother-in-law and then separated from her mother-in-law before the allergic reaction. It is possible that she consumed something containing the allergens after dinner. The attorneys for Raglan Road and Disney would be incompetent if they didn't investigate this possibility.



The $50k amount has nothing to do with what the Plaintiff is seeking. It is simply to determine which court hears the case. $8,000-$50,000 is heard in a County civil court and above $50,000 is heard in a circuit court.



Landlords constrain menu choices all the time. For example, if an Italian restaurant leases space in a strip center, there will be a clause in the lease that prevents another restaurant in the same strip center from having a substantially similar menu. The landlord will put that restriction into leases for other restaurants.

The questions you ask are valid and I don't think any of us know the answers unless we have seen the leases between Disney and tenants at Disney Springs.



The website references that now as well. It also says that they can not guarantee that there won't be any allergens in the food even if you talk to a Cast Member or the Chef. I just took a quick look at the website for Caesars Palace. I don't see any allergy friendly menus but I can order food from independent restaurants on the Caesars Palace website and also make reservations.

Are you a lawyer?

 

[DisneyCane]

Are you a lawyer?

No but I unfortunately had a lot of experience dealing with civil suits in a business I was part of around 15 years ago. I spent a lot of time learning about contract law from our attorneys. We paid a lot of fees for me to attain the knowledge.

 

[Chi84]

We paid a lot of fees for me to attain the knowledge.

And those attorneys paid a lot of tuition to be able to impart it to you.