Wrongful Death Lawsuit and Disney's Scary Attempt

[Disney Analyst]

Wouldn't them not owning or running the restaurant this happened at, shield them from being sued? Or rather, help them win the suit?

Should this person not rather sue to the restaurant/operator?

 

[Willmark]

Either way, the relationship between TWDC and Raglan Road is far, far less attenuated than the idea that signing up for a trial on D+ means you waive all liability against the company on any issue whatsoever.

Yeah, this is at the heart of it isn’t it?

Disney: “you signed up for Disney+ we’re covered from any/all lawsuits and it has to go to arbitration!”

Hypothetical customer dies in say one of the parks:

Disney: “you signed up for Disney+…”

That’s why I’m going the word novel here.

In way this is very similar (seemingly) with the infamous McDonald’s hot coffee case. Most people are unaware that the woman initially was simply seeking her medical bills to be covered from scalding coffee. McDonald’s Corp fought it and the rest was history.

Is there more to this? I’m sure there is but at least the surface level? A person died from anaphylactic shock, that alone ratchets everything up.

The idea that agreeing to a service like online ordering/reservations or an unrelated service like Disney+ means they forgo certain things is crazy.

 

[LittleBuford]

If this is directed at my post, my point is they don't run or own the restaurant. The people that do are the ones that should be used.

Be that as it may, it’s a pretty nasty tactic on Disney’s part.

 

[Club Cooloholic]

Yeah, this is at the heart of it isn’t it?

Disney: “you signed up for Disney+ we’re covered from any/all lawsuits and it has to go to arbitration!”

Hypothetical customer dies in say one of the parks:

Disney: “you signed up for Disney+…”

That’s why I’m going the word novel here.

In way this is very similar (seemingly) with the infamous McDonald’s hot coffee case. Most people are unaware that the woman initial was simply seeking her medical bills to be covered from scalding coffee. McDonald’s Corp fought it and the rest was history.

Is there more to this? I’m sure there is but at least the surface level? A person died from anaphylactic shock, that alone ratchets everything up.

The idea that agreeing to a service like online ordering/reservations or an unrelated service like Disney+ means they forgo certain things is crazy.

That's why I posted it. I am not trying to argue Disney's level of liability in this or not, but their tactic to try to force arbitration and have the suit thrown out based on the complaint's having signed up for Disney Plus and buying tickets on line through Disney. It sets quite a precedent that should alarm any customer.

 

[Willmark]

That's why I posted it. I am not trying to argue Disney's level of liability in this or not, but their tactic to try to force arbitration and have the suit thrown out based on the complaint's having signed up for Disney Plus and buying tickets on line through Disney. It sets quite a precedent that should alarm any customer.

I’m agreement with you.

I saw the article earlier today and just shook my head at it.

While a company is within their rights for a reasonable terms and conditions section, I would imagine that it applies to only that service in question. Hence why I keep going back to the word novel because if a company could get away with this, it opens a whole new realm of what could possibly be dismissed by the wave a hand by a company.

Not a lawyer, but logically this does not follow IMO.

Now had they simply side stepped and avoided it by saying “we’re not the at fault party here” that at least makes “sense” in terms of the lawsuit. One also has to wonder what the legalese is between Disney as the landlord and the restaurant in question. It’s highly likely that the bean counters and/or lawyers had to consider these possibilities at the contract stage; aka who the at fault party would be.

And if not that has to be some really shoddy work on the lawyers side if non-lawyers thought of that and they didn’t.

 

[Lilofan]

That's why I posted it. I am not trying to argue Disney's level of liability in this or not, but their tactic to try to force arbitration and have the suit thrown out based on the complaint's having signed up for Disney Plus and buying tickets on line through Disney. It sets quite a precedent that should alarm any customer.

If a company can write up a way to make the consumer go through arbitration , probably 99.9% don’t even read all the fine print before signing up. Speaking about fine print , the fine print on the tickets hardly anyone reads that the company is not liable for injury death but guests still sue anyway

 

[Figgy1]

Wouldn't them not owning or running the restaurant this happened at, shield them from being sued? Or rather, help them win the suit?

Should this person not rather sue to the restaurant/operator?

Every suit everywhere if deep pockets are in any way associated they're named in the suit

 

[Mireille]

Ok, IANAL but from what I've read, the reasoning for Disney being included in the lawsuit is that the Disney website/MDE was used to select the restaurant and the site/app made mention of allergens or whatever. So I can kind of see how they are tenuously connected to an event that occurred in a restaurant they neither own nor operate. I've seen that they referenced EULA or statements on the website or MDE user license that refer to forced arbitration. I don't understand why or how Disney+ factors into this at all or why they would bring it up (which makes me think this story is being misrepresented by people who are also not lawyers), but I think if they are using language/forced agreement to terms by using their website to force arbitration over whatever responsibility they may bear through advertising on their website or handling reservations but wouldn't that still leave the litigants open to pursuing Raglan Road, its employees, or ownership? Or is Disney trying to roll it all up and force arbitration with the restaurant as well? I will say, however, corporations have been given far too much leeway in their ability to force arbitration and it's time to rein that bs in.

 

[Disney Analyst]

Ok, IANAL but from what I've read, the reasoning for Disney being included in the lawsuit is that the Disney website/MDE was used to select the restaurant and the site/app made mention of allergens or whatever.

Would that mean companies like Open Table, simply a platform for restaurants to use for software, reservations, etc, could be included in an allergy lawsuit, despite having nothing to do with the actual restaurant and its operations?

Can a mall be sued because a tenant harms a customer?

I mean I guess anyone can be sued or wrapped into a suit, but I don’t see how a judge would award fault to a mall or Open Table?

Genuinely curious.

 

[larryz]

This also means that any of you that owned a PC between 1996-2009 cannot sue us, as you most certainly would’ve received, and redeemed, a free trial offer for two weeks of AOL service.

I was on Compuserve. Never subscribed to AOL...

Also, I believe the courts have held that gross negligence cases can be filed regardless of arbitration clauses. I consider myself a fairly reasonable person -- serving food with dairy and nuts to someone who you know is allergic to both sounds grossly negligent to me.

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

Disney's lawyers are covering their bases and doing their jobs.

No, they’re not. I’m an attorney. These are stupid arguments and beyond that, someone at some point should have used some common sense and realized that they were a terrible look for a company that otherwise cares about it’s reputation.

 

[Lilofan]

No, they’re not. I’m an attorney. These are stupid arguments and beyond that, someone at some point should have used some common sense and realized that they were a terrible look for a company that otherwise cares about it’s reputation.

There is one aspect, common sense then there is the other aspect. Be a team player and if you don’t play along to get along then your employment may be short lived.

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

Would that mean companies like Open Table, simply a platform for restaurants to use for software, reservations, etc, could be included in an allergy lawsuit, despite having nothing to do with the actual restaurant and its operations?

That’s a bad analogy. Open Table doesn’t have a whole section of their website dedicated to specific allergy issues at each of its restaurant and list an allergy friendly menu. Also open table isn’t the landlord, and the relationship between open table and it’s restaurants and Disney and it’s on property restaurants are not even closely comparable.

 

[drizgirl]

The lengths some will go to say “it’s not Disney’s fault!”

Now, there is a point of saying “hey are just the landlord here” but I don’t think anyone can seriously back Disney’s “novel” attempt to use “you signed up for Disney+” as a defense…

Yes. If Disney isn't responsible because they are merely the landlord, then they should argue that in court and be found not liable.

 

[Disney Analyst]

That’s a bad analogy. Open Table doesn’t have a whole section of their website dedicated to specific allergy issues at each of its restaurant and list an allergy friendly menu. Also open table isn’t the landlord, and the relationship between open table and it’s restaurants and Disney and it’s on property restaurants are not even closely comparable.

I mean, theoretically Open Table gives the tools to note allergies to restaurants, restaurants can upload allergy menus if they so choose... it feels similar.

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

Can a mall be sued because a tenant harms a customer?

If the mall lists the restaurant’s menu on it’s website, and has a special section on allergens, allergy friendly menus, etc, and then someone detrimentally relies on that and eats at that restaurant using that allergy-friendly information, and then dies? Sure, there could absolutely be some liability there. However, no mall has that kind of relationship with its tenants. The analogies here are not good, Disney has a unique relationship with the restaurants that are on-property at Disney Springs.

 

[invader]

No, they’re not. I’m an attorney. These are stupid arguments and beyond that, someone at some point should have used some common sense and realized that they were a terrible look for a company that otherwise cares about it’s reputation.

So you, as a lawyer, think they should have waived their right to arbitrate?

 

[UNCgolf]

It's hard for me to believe any judge would accept Disney's argument regarding the Disney+ arbitration clause, but I suppose it's possible.

 

[Squishy]

 

[KDM31091]

I agree this is a heartless and cold look for Disney, but they do not own or operate this restaurant, so why would they be involved?