Wrongful Death Lawsuit and Disney's Scary Attempt

L

Lilofan

Well-Known Member
bpiper said:
Yes, just look at Chik-Fil-A...

But people with a peanut allergy identify themselves as having a peanut allergy. It is exclusive to just peanuts, no other nuts

People with a tree nut allergy, like my DW (who also has a sesame allergy) identify as having a nut allergy. She can't have any nut that is grown above ground on a tree. Like, walnuts, pecans, almonds, cashew, hazelnuts and pistachio nuts. Peanuts don't count because they are grown underground.

When she eats anything with nuts or sesame, she gets an immediate tingling reaction in her mouth. She doesn't have to actually eat the nut in the food because the act of cooking the dish will release the oils in the nut into the surrounding food and contaminating it. This is why she can't scrape off the sesame seeds off of a bun. The warm bread releases the oils in the seed when they are sprinkled on top of the bun.

Because of my DW's immediate reaction and everyone she knows who also has the allergy, when taking a bite and chewing, I would suspect that it wasn't tree nuts that was the culprit, but was the dairy allergy. She was able to finish the meal and walk around for 45 minutes. No nut reaction takes 45+ minutes.

Fun factoid, if you use an epi-pen, you MUST go to the ER. The epinephrine in it opens your airways so that you can breath but it constricts your blood vessels, raising your blood pressure and heart rate, which puts you in risk of getting a heart attack. She once spent 6 hours after getting to the ER hooked up to the EKG to monitor her heart rate and blood pressure until it went down enough to be discharged.
Click to expand...
The doctor on vacation who passed away carried an Epi-Pen with her and used it when she needed to after eating at Raglan Road. It is like playing Russian Roulette in that she knew that the items that she was allergic to could kill her. The last place I would be eating in is a restaurant where cross contamination is not if but always.
 
D

DarkMetroid567

Well-Known Member
TrainsOfDisney said:
In my opinion - no business should be able to limit liability in any way. Terms of service has gone way too far in this country and I think within a few years some laws will change.

If you are negligent- it’s my right to sue. It’s the judges / court decision and nobody else’s.
Click to expand...
Hard to see arbitration clauses ever go away. Their flexibility and lower costs have only made arbitration and other alternative dispute mechanisms more popular, and the courts themselves are still slammed with cases. In essence, stopping these types of clauses would cause legal backups of years beyond what we already have.
 
D

DarkMetroid567

Well-Known Member
Overlordkitty said:
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?
Click to expand...
I don’t think the victim/plaintiff’s belief of which company is the proper party matters in a negligence action, but I could be wrong.

In general, I don’t see the plaintiffs prevailing on a typical negligence claim against Disney at all, unless Florida law allows them to claim that Disney negligently hired or contracted with Ragland Road’s operator in some capacity.
 
nickys

nickys

Premium Member
Unbanshee said:
I know that using the Disney+ excuse is what all of the media outlets are using to get clicks, but Disney also claims protection from the WDW website disclaimers.

"Company lawyers also claim that because Piccolo used the Walt Disney Parks’ website to buy Epcot Center tickets, Disney is shielded from a lawsuit..."

Disney's lawyers are covering their bases and doing their jobs. I guess clickbait media is also doing its job.
Click to expand...
So because he bought tickets to a Disney park, Disney aren’t liable. How is that even relevant?

I can’t read the article, geo-locked.
 
L

Lilofan

Well-Known Member
GhostHost1000 said:
Bad look for Disney. All over the news and internet this morning. They are really good at creating their own problems aren’t they.

I will say however, this is not a Disney owned restaurant yet everything I’ve seen says a Disney restaurant so they are getting the bad PR with their D+ terms and conditions excuse. 🤦🏼‍♂️
Click to expand...
This is merely a bump in the road for Disney. Some think the sky will fall when something happens at Disney but Disney time and time again has proved the naysayers wrong.
 
Tha Realest

Tha Realest

Well-Known Member
invader said:
Did you read the motion?
Click to expand...
Yes. And I read their statement.

It’s entirely possible to defend your company without sending a lackey to see if someone, four years earlier, opted in to a D+ trial, and try and use that as a “gotcha” to minimize liability.

This is preposterous, and I am glad they’re catching heat for this attempt (which I hope blows up in their face).
 
Tha Realest

Tha Realest

Well-Known Member
Lilofan said:
Recall when the 2 year old guest got killed by the gator by Grand Floridian and that PR fiasco? It’s ancient history now.
Click to expand...
That was a terrible situation. Tragic. But for context, the comparison here would be if they had sued, and Disney said, “Sorry, dad, you registered for Terms of Use that forced you into arbitration when you signed up for a Disney Infinity account three years ago.”
 
L

Lilofan

Well-Known Member
Tha Realest said:
That was a terrible situation. Tragic. But for context, the comparison here would be if they had sued, and Disney said, “Sorry, dad, you registered for Terms of Use that forced you into arbitration when you signed up for a Disney Infinity account three years ago.”
Click to expand...
The bad PR was that many knew that gators were in the water and some guest and cast at times were feeding them prior to fatal attack. When the Poly bungalows opened at Seven Seas lagoon at $2K per night some were feeding the gators from their front door.
 
D

DisneyCane

Well-Known Member
Fido Chuckwagon said:
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.
Click to expand...
Have you, or anybody else, dug up the actual filings to see what Disney is or isn't claiming and whether or not the arguments are stupid? Seems to me like the info is all coming from the Plaintiff's attorney in the article. The Plaintiff's attorney is trying to make Disney look bad for PR purposes likely to try and force some kind of settlement.

My guess, without seeing Disney's motion, is that Disney is making every argument possible to be dismissed from the suit. I fail to see how Disney has any liability for alleged actions of whoever owns and operates Raglan Road.

I've not looked at the Raglan Road menu or anything posted at the restaurant but I'd think they would have allergy disclaimers. Their liability should be and will be litigated in the case. Somebody with life threatening food allergies should not just take a server's word for it when it comes to avoiding ingredients they are allergic to.
 
LSLS

LSLS

Well-Known Member
Tha Realest said:
That was a terrible situation. Tragic. But for context, the comparison here would be if they had sued, and Disney said, “Sorry, dad, you registered for Terms of Use that forced you into arbitration when you signed up for a Disney Infinity account three years ago.”
Click to expand...
Things go away a lot quicker when you admit to a mistake and move on. And the funny thing is, I am on the side that they would not really be responsible here. But trying to force it to arbitration because of the terms of your STREAMING service is nuts. I think making the case this is NOT a Disney thing would make people feel fine with it. But them trying to use your D+ as reasoning that you shouldn't get a trial if something happens with another part of Disney is going to give a LOT of people an uneasy feeling.

Will this tank Disney? OF COURSE NOT. Arguing that 5 years from now this won't get coverage is a ridiculous argument. Sure it's a bump in the road for now and will become an after thought for most in the future. BUT that doesn't negate it's HORRIBLE PR right now, at a time they really don't need it. And short term, that could hurt them.
 
GhostHost1000

GhostHost1000

Premium Member
Lilofan said:
The bad PR was that many knew that gators were in the water and some guest and cast at times were feeding them prior to fatal attack. When the Poly bungalows opened at Seven Seas lagoon at $2K per night some were feeding the gators from their front door.
Click to expand...
how is that anywhere close to the same as Disney saying no one can sue them if they signed up for Disney+

Disney shouldn't be liable for a restaurant they don't own or control, but their reason why is ridiculous looking
 
L

Lilofan

Well-Known Member
GhostHost1000 said:
how is that anywhere close to the same as Disney saying no one can sue them if they signed up for Disney+

Disney shouldn't be liable for a restaurant they don't own or control, but their reason why is ridiculous looking
Click to expand...
You mentioned bad PR is bad for business and Disney overcame the negative PR of the fatal gator attack on the 2 year old guest.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom