Wrongful Death Lawsuit and Disney's Scary Attempt

[Ayla]

Have you and I even conversed in this forum? Or are you saying Chi is a lawyer?

Yes, she is a lawyer.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

They also echoed the sentiment that this piece was leaked to the media to put pressure on Disney, despite the fact that the case is much more complex in its' entirety.

What is complex? I don’t have a law degree but I can understand the basics of the case. It doesn’t seem overly complex to me.

The proximity on this thing is tenuous at best and complainant is looking to claim wife relied on that Disney published info(even **if** she never read it there).

I look at the Disney allergy-free menus all the time when I’m planning where to eat. It seems reasonable that other guests would do the same. In fact I would find it very odd if someone with a severe allergy wouldn’t look at the allergy free menu on the Disney site before choosing a restaurant.

So it’s very odd that you say the word “claim” as though it was possibly a lie?

 

[flynnibus]

The plaintiff also cited the allergy free option for the restaurant on the website. The same website that noted the arbitration clause.

That is not accurate. The MDE website doesn't have the same arbitration elements in it directly... this was part of the problem with the argument. The arbitration clause was only in the D+ agreement... which is why D+ part of the discussion at all. Disney was arguing the user agreed to arbitration over the MDE issue because of several layers of terms linking the two different worlds together.. including through a 3rd Disney Terms of Use document linked in the agreements. It really is one of these stories of jump from here, to there, to there, and include from here. Which is why it probably would have failed in front of the judge ultimately.

 

[flynnibus]

What is complex? I don’t have a law degree but I can understand the basics of the case. It doesn’t seem overly complex to me.

It's complex if you want to include Disney in the discussion... because Disney didn't have a direct hand in anything that happened that day. Disney's inclusion is through legal complexities and arguments about their culpability for content and execution of things from an indepdenent operator. Yes, it is complex. The only non-complex path is if you say "Only Raglan Rd is responsible for what happened in their restaurant" -- which clearly you don't believe.

I look at the Disney allergy-free menus all the time when I’m planning where to eat. It seems reasonable that other guests would do the same. In fact I would find it very odd if someone with a severe allergy wouldn’t look at the allergy free menu on the Disney site before choosing a restaurant.

And you'd sue Yelp or Google if you looked at the menu there and then ended up getting sick because of what happened in the kitchen or your waiter?

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

The only non-complex path is if you say "Only Raglan Rd is responsible for what happened in their restaurant" -- which clearly you don't believe.

I never said I didn’t believe that. I’m also not sure that Disney is 100% not responsible- that’s where you need to get a judge involved cause that’s above my pay grade! Ha.

From a legal perspective I can see Disney being 0% liable or partially liable - that would be decided by all sorts of laws and ultimately the judge (or jury as the case may be.)

And you'd sue Yelp or Google if you looked at the menu there and then ended up getting sick because of what happened in the kitchen or your waiter?

That has nothing to do with what I was responding to, the poster made it sound questionable if they looked at the Disney provided menus.

Now I will point out - google and yelp point to the official restaurant menu and I would never think that google owned a restaurant on google maps. Since the majority (or close to the majority) of restaurants listed on the WDW app are owned and operated by Disney - that is an interesting piece of the puzzle.

 

[invader]

Essentially, the court would send it to arbitration, arbitration meetings would occur and an agreement is reached, then a short court proceeding to close the case that is still technically open with the court. To "throw out the case" means to vacate it entirely, typically as having no merits.

Arbitration is done without all the formalities of a court trial, the long drawn-out timeline, etc. My layman's understanding is that requesting the case be sent to arbitration would have "stayed" or essentially "paused" the court proceedings while the 2 parties (or I guess 3 parties in this situation) tried to hammer out an acceptable agreement. If the parties were unable to reach an agreement in arbitration -- or if one party did not feel the arbitration was done fairly -- they can still ask the court to review and either confirm or vacation the arbitration agreement.

This is not how the arbitration process works.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

What is complex? I don’t have a law degree but I can understand the basics of the case. It doesn’t seem overly complex to me.

Complex in the sense that there are many reasons Disney can argue they aren't liable here. There were 16 I think that someone listed a while back.

The one piece about Disney+ fine print has been highlighted because it makes for a splashy and outrage generating headline. It puts public pressure on Disney but it is just one small piece of a bigger puzzle.

 

[Club Cooloholic]

Yes, she is a lawyer.

Good to know, pardon me if it didn't seem obvious by her posts.

 

[flynnibus]

I never said I didn’t believe that. I’m also not sure that Disney is 100% not responsible- that’s where you need to get a judge involved cause that’s above my pay grade! Ha.

Then I think you agree that your statement "I don’t have a law degree but I can understand the basics of the case. It doesn’t seem overly complex to me." is off-base. It is complex in that the inclusion of Disney as it pertains to the customer expectations and their legal liability of their relationship with the operator are not cut and dry. The plaintiff tries to couple them together... Disney argues their lease agreement is clear cut. The plaintiff tries to argue their responsibility because of publishing in MDE, etc. Not cut and dry.. and why there would be arguments before a judge.

That has nothing to do with what I was responding to, the poster made it sound questionable if they looked at the Disney provided menus.

I think that thread was more to the point of 'you're just listening to claims by the plantiff' instead of things that are necessarily substantiated. The complications the MDE twist brings are in fact complex... but it behoves the plaintiff to bring them into the complaint because its essential to their reasoning to drag Disney into the case.

Now I will point out - google and yelp point to the official restaurant menu and I would never think that google owned a restaurant on google maps. Since the majority (or close to the majority) of restaurants listed on the WDW app are owned and operated by Disney - that is an interesting piece of the puzzle.

So tweak it... the mall's website had the menus? You can see how this gets ugly and why google, or a leasing company, would want to separate the liability for content they are just making available.... vs be responsible for the content of... or decisions made because of.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

So tweak it... the mall's website had the menus?

Does the mall own and operate the majority of restaurants on the website?

As for the “complex” I think it’s just different definitions of the word complex. Every legal case has complexity - this one doesn’t seem overly complex to me but that’s my definition of the word.

 

[flynnibus]

Does the mall own and operate the majority of restaurants on the website?

Then you're trying to argue 'expectations' and 'assumptions' vs hard things.

And Disney doesn't own and operate the majority of the restaurants at Disney Springs. It's the opposite. Same can be said of EPCOT - which is where the plaintiff had tickets for.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

And Disney doesn't own and operate the majority of the restaurants at Disney Springs. It's the opposite. Same can be said of EPCOT - which is where the plaintiff had tickets for.

And how would a guest know that? Isn’t that the point.

I’m a crazy Disney fan and I’m not sure which Epcot restaurants are for sure Disney vs. 3rd party. Is there a way for the general public to know?

 

[Tha Realest]

I find it interesting that D’Amaro issued a statement. I’m not aware of him commenting directly on many lawsuits before. Even in the CFTOD/RCID lawsuit Disney statements were issued by Vahle.

 

[UNCgolf]

This is not how the arbitration process works.

I think they're confusing arbitration and mediation.

 

[Willmark]

And how would a guest know that? Isn’t that the point.

I’m a crazy Disney fan and I’m not sure which Epcot restaurants are for sure Disney vs. 3rd party. Is there a way for the general public to know?

That’s assuming they even give it a thought. I would guess most won’t give it a thought if they are “at Disney.”

 

[Lilofan]

That’s assuming they even give it a thought. I would guess most won’t give it a thought if they are “at Disney.”

Look at the cast nametags. Third party have a different design nametags.

 

[peter11435]

Look at the cast nametags. Third party have a different design nametags.

That is not always true. There are many third party cast that where standard Disney nametags.

 

[Willmark]

Look at the cast nametags. Third party have a different design nametags.

And again the average person likely won’t have any idea of that.

 

[Lilofan]

That is not always true. There are many third party cast that where standard Disney nametags.

Odd , the third party places we wined dined shopped had different nametags.

 

[flynnibus]

And again the average person likely won’t have any idea of that.

Imagine deciding who to sue because of costumes...