Wrongful Death Lawsuit and Disney's Scary Attempt

[DisneyCane]

The allegation in Paragraph 11 has nothing to do with the website.

The "information and belief" is because the restaurant and menu was presented on the Disney Springs website, although it is not stated explicitly in the paragraph. What other information would there be to cause the belief?

Many large resorts/hotels show dining options and present menus. People may think that a restaurant at a large Vegas resort, for example, is operated by the resort because of the presentation on the website. That doesn't mean the belief is correct. In most cases, the restaurants are owned and operated by a different entity and the owner of the resort would not be liable for food safety issues.

I have a feeling that after word of this suit gets around, Disney and other resort operators will make it clear that any representations made on menus displayed are representations of a third party.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The allegation in Paragraph 11 has nothing to do with the website.

Does Paragraph 11 somehow negate 63?

 

[invader]

Does Paragraph 11 somehow negate 63?

It wouldn’t matter anyways.

 

[Chi84]

There are different stages in lawsuits. This suit is at the very beginning where the parties are sorting out procedural matters such as which entity will be deciding the issues. The substantive issues themselves won't come into play until later. Conflating the stages will cause unnecessary confusion.

 

[DisneyCane]

According to the wayback machine on archive.org, this was the statement on the website when this incident took place which appears to be the same as the current statement:

About our allergy-friendly menu items: Guests may consult with a chef or special diets trained Cast Member before placing an order. We use reasonable efforts in our sourcing, preparation and handling procedures to avoid the introduction of the named allergens into allergy-friendly menu choices. While we take steps to prevent cross-contact, we do not have separate allergy-friendly kitchens and are unable to guarantee that a menu item is completely free of allergens. Allergy-friendly offerings are reliant on supplier ingredient labels. We cannot guarantee the accuracy of the contents of each food item. Allergen advisory statements (e.g., "may contain") are not regulated and therefore not taken into consideration when developing allergy-friendly meals. It is ultimately our Guests' discretion to make an informed choice based upon their individual dietary needs.

I don't know how somebody with severe, life threatening, food allergies could possibly read this and feel it is completely safe.

 

[Chi84]

The "information and belief" is because the restaurant and menu was presented on the Disney Springs website, although it is not stated explicitly in the paragraph. What other information would there be to cause the belief?

Many large resorts/hotels show dining options and present menus. People may think that a restaurant at a large Vegas resort, for example, is operated by the resort because of the presentation on the website. That doesn't mean the belief is correct. In most cases, the restaurants are owned and operated by a different entity and the owner of the resort would not be liable for food safety issues.

I have a feeling that after word of this suit gets around, Disney and other resort operators will make it clear that any representations made on menus displayed are representations of a third party.

Tort law is designed so that liability ultimately rests with the negligent party. I'm sure Disney's agreement with the restaurant owner includes a provision for indemnification if Disney is sued based on the restaurant's negligent act.

 

[Lilofan]

The deceased doctor didn't sign up for Disney+, her husband did.

Should have read the fine print and shared info with spouse.

 

[LittleBuford]

In view of the clarifications from our more legally knowledgeable members, I feel embarrassed for having earlier accepted the media’s framing of this. I came across the story in a supposedly reliable source that even included commentary from a lawyer not connected to the case, so I thought I was on pretty solid ground when I posted my initial response yesterday. @Chi84 and others, I appreciate your enlightening posts.

 

[DisneyCane]

Tort law is designed so that liability ultimately rests with the negligent party. I'm sure Disney's agreement with the restaurant owner includes a provision for indemnification if Disney is sued based on the restaurant's negligent act.

I'm sure it does. The issue for Disney is, let's say the Plaintiff wins a $50 million judgement against Disney, Raglan Road isn't going to be able to reimburse Disney and satisfy the indemnification clause. Disney will likely compel Raglan Road to reimburse their attorney's fees as part of the indemnification.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Should have read the fine print and shared info with spouse.

Such a crass, gross but on-brand comment.

 

[Lilofan]

Such a crass, gross but on-brand comment.

Reality is not for some to accept but easy just to critique. Disney like many other companies CYA.

 

[Chi84]

I'm sure it does. The issue for Disney is, let's say the Plaintiff wins a $50 million judgement against Disney, Raglan Road isn't going to be able to reimburse Disney and satisfy the indemnification clause. Disney will likely compel Raglan Road to reimburse their attorney's fees as part of the indemnification.

This essentially comes down to insurance.

 

[Tha Realest]

Does Paragraph 11 somehow negate 63?

Paragraph 11 supports Count III against Disney. It doesn’t have to “negate” anything. Paragraph 63 is in support of a different liability theory.

Take a look at Paragraphe 53-56. Website is not referenced or alleged in count III. They have a legal theory of liability that doesn’t rest on the website.

 

[flynnibus]

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

Hopefully by now the other informed responses have dismissed these opinions in your head...

Bad PR is not good for business

Precedent lives longer than people's memories...

Reality is this is drama stirred up to do exactly what it's done here... get the ill informed rilled up about stuff they don't understand or have no actual individual interest in. Mission accomplished...

Meanwhile, a month from now no one will remember it and the actual work will continue to go on.

If anything people should be thinking about the underlying connections here that a mega-conglomerate means... Where associating with one 'company' in a completely unrelate space has impact on your life in a completely different area because of legal relationships.

 

[Rhinocerous]

A quarter-century ago, in college, I learned that Disney lawyers play to win, and play dirty.

I wonder if maybe their legal department has had this strategy in their back pocket for awhile, and saw this case as a good trial balloon. Try it on a case with limited liability to hopefully establish precedent for more directly focused cases down the road. They could have seen it as low-risk-high-reward, not anticipating the PR blowback.

 

[lazyboy97o]

A quarter-century ago, in college, I learned that Disney lawyers play to win, and play dirty.

I wonder if maybe their legal department has had this strategy in their back pocket for awhile, and saw this case as a good trial balloon. Try it on a case with limited liability to hopefully establish precedent for more directly focused cases down the road. They could have seen it as low-risk-high-reward, not anticipating the PR blowback.

Tell us you didn’t read the thread without telling us you didn’t read the thread.

 

[Chi84]

A quarter-century ago, in college, I learned that Disney lawyers play to win, and play dirty.

I wonder if maybe their legal department has had this strategy in their back pocket for awhile, and saw this case as a good trial balloon. Try it on a case with limited liability to hopefully establish precedent for more directly focused cases down the road. They could have seen it as low-risk-high-reward, not anticipating the PR blowback.

Testing the limits of clickwrap provisions.

 

[Rhinocerous]

Testing the limits of clickwrap provisions.

Assuming clickwrap provisions are the terms and limitations established in your standard ToS agreement, yes. That is what I am suggesting.

 

[Lilofan]

A quarter-century ago, in college, I learned that Disney lawyers play to win, and play dirty.

I wonder if maybe their legal department has had this strategy in their back pocket for awhile, and saw this case as a good trial balloon. Try it on a case with limited liability to hopefully establish precedent for more directly focused cases down the road. They could have seen it as low-risk-high-reward, not anticipating the PR blowback.

With the help of Disney legal, the one not to be named who got married at the Disney wedding pavilion , got outsmarted by the Mouse. Don't mess with the Mouse.

 

[nickys]

That’s not at all what Disney is saying. Just that the case should go to arbitration.

I’m sure when the time comes, Disney will allege they’re not liable.

Sorry, I’m not understanding. This is what I was referencing:

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