Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
THIS IS IGERS DISNEY COMPANY - VERY BAD!!!
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Wrongful Death Lawsuit and Disney's Scary Attempt
- Thread starter Club Cooloholic
- Start date
Overlordkitty
Well-Known Member
There's the law, and there's PR. Even if Disney wins the arbitration legal argument, which i think there's a way Disney an lose it, this may hurt them more in the long run from a PR stand point.
Overlordkitty
Well-Known Member
Disney also argues in the brief that it is a tenant-landrord relationship and they should be excluded from the lawsuit. The lawyers put every argument in their brief.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
But that’s for the judge to decide.
Disney legal team - CYA
Overlordkitty
Well-Known Member
I agree that Disney has a special, unique relationship beyond just landlord-tenant, and I think Disney could potentially be included in liability.
Most of us here on the forums know all the different levels of what is Disney, what is third party, etc., but would the common, reasonable person understand that a company that advertises about their allergen awareness, and advertises restaurants on the same website actually know that they're different companies?
Last edited:
Vegas Disney Fan
Well-Known Member
Two wrongs don’t make a right, the widower suing Disney (because they are the landlord) was ridiculous, Disney claiming arbitration rights because of a D+ subscription is equally ridiculous.
It’s a bad look and makes me question how protected I am at the park since I’m also a D+ subscriber. If a lamppost falls (as has happened recently) and breaks my back is Disneys liability limited because I’m a D+ subscriber? Horrible look.
It’s a bad look and makes me question how protected I am at the park since I’m also a D+ subscriber. If a lamppost falls (as has happened recently) and breaks my back is Disneys liability limited because I’m a D+ subscriber? Horrible look.
vagabondarts
Active Member
Bob Iger could take a week off and the money saved could cover all settlements of this type
Section106
Active Member
They ordered Scallops, a Vegan Fritter, and Vegan Sheperds Pie according to the article. Looking at the Raglan Road dinner menu it lists butter sauce on the Scallops Gnocchi, and I can't imagine that nuts are used in the fritter or the shepherds pie and no dairy if it is vegan. Gnocchi is flour, potato and eggs. If she ordered or ate scallops in a butter sauce that was plainly listen on the menu then I can't see how it is Disney's fault.
Overlordkitty
Well-Known Member
Oh I absolutely get that, but American Airlines just tried a bad PR move in a legal briefing to try to CYA, and now AA has gotten rid of a legal team.
Someone else here used the term 'novel' and I agree this could be novel in how arbitration is handled for these large conglomerates. If this doesn't go Disney's way, this would create case law that large corporations would not like.
Average attention span of humans is 8 seconds. Goldfish fare better. This will be ancient history moving forward.
Overlordkitty
Well-Known Member
The fritter, I think the scallops, and another article said onion rings were eaten as well are all fryer foods. The fryer is often forgotten as a point of cross contamination.
From the widowers statement, they had conferred several times with the waiter that the food could be made to accommodate her allergies. If she had ordered straight from the menu and never told anyone, then there probably wouldn't be a case. But it sounds like she did everything she could to verify.
Whether Disney stays on the lawsuit is what Disney was arguing in their brief.
Last edited:
You can cook scallops without butter. Preparing them for someone with a dairy allergy would be a piece of cake. A gluten-free, non-dairy, no-nuts cake, of course...
Overlordkitty
Well-Known Member
Average human, yes. This will go away in a couple weeks. But if this somehow does turn into case law, that's got a lot longer life span.
Epcot82Guy
Well-Known Member
To be fair, Disney's legal team has had this reputation for longer than Iger's tenure. It's grown since then. But, a company of this size and exposure to the public often has an aggressive legal team. Disney is known in the industry (i.e. in house legal teams) as being particularly so. I can speak from experience... if you enjoy the Disney magic, it is often made quite clear Disney Legal is not where you really want to be.
Overlordkitty
Well-Known Member
I had thought I wanted to be a lawyer, and went to law school for a year. Realized I didn't have the stomach for these kind of legal arguments.
ToTBellHop
Well-Known Member
Given that this could end up with a settlement in the millions and given how broad their ticket contract is, I don’t blame them. They added all of these binding arbitration clauses during the pandemic and I guess they’ve kept them…
This feels cold to us but law is pretty cold.
This feels cold to us but law is pretty cold.
You think Disney is going to drain the oil in their fryers in the kitchens to refill with new oil during a hectic night of cooking the orders of all diners so to cook the guest vegan fritter with allergies ? Not happening and that's what happened. The guest had allergies that could kill her. I would not be going dining in that case. The guest who died carried her Epi-Pen in case she had an allergic reaction. She used it after eating but she still passed.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
They didn’t just rely on information provided by Disney. They relied on information provided directly by the restaurant and its staff.
They knew enough to also sue them.