Wrongful Death Lawsuit and Disney's Scary Attempt

[flynnibus]

Florida Courts and public policy generally favor arbitration. I’m not sure why certain posters here act like arbitration means the case is being “thrown out.”

Because that's what the web articles say.. duh

Plenty of sloppy reporting on this one... it's got lots of juice that make it attractive to the media. Death, emotions, big evil corp, click-throughs.. its basically a perfect story for them

 

[DarkMetroid567]

The $50,000 thing is funny. You guys really think that a plaintiff suing for wrongful death would be ok with 50,000 dollars?

 

[tallica]

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.

Agree, and possibly several millions in lost revenue.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The $50,000 thing is funny. You guys really think that a plaintiff suing for wrongful death would be ok with 50,000 dollars?

It’s a statutory threshold that is often misreported.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

I will say however, this is not a Disney owned restaurant yet everything I’ve seen says a Disney restaurant

Disney owned and operated restaurants are very careful about allergies - if you ask a cashier or server, they are required to get a chef - they can not answer any questions. That’s to avoid this exact situation from happening.

For awhile I was avoiding gluten just because it didn’t agree with me - I asked about some potato wedges or something like that at a food court - I just wanted to know the ingredient - the chef came out, said there was no gluten in the ingredients and they are supposed to be cooked in a separate non-gluten fryer but they don’t guarantee there is no cross contamination because of chicken fingers etc. but he said he would be happy to make me a batch in the back that is guaranteed non-contact if I wanted to wait.

That’s the Disney way.

I think the argument would be, if Disney advertises them all the same - how would a guest know that Raglan Road isn’t owned by Disney and doesn’t follow the same procedures?

 

[Smiley/OCD]

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.

It doesn’t matter…the accident happened on their property. When you enter into a liability lawsuit, ANY/EVERY halfwitted attorney will tell you that EVERY entity, person, company gets named in the suit. The courts and/or the jury will assign the actual liability when the case is tried. The plaintiffs can always drop a defendant…it’s much harder to add one, in some cases, a separate lawsuit would have to be filed which will add double the cost. You name EVERYONE, and after the dust settles, if they’re not responsible, it will be determined.

 

[tallica]

Recall when the 2 year old guest got killed by the gator by Grand Floridian and that PR fiasco? It’s ancient history now.

Yes, but Disney never

OK, I had a few minutes and looked up the actual motion Disney filed. Based on the facts, most, if not all, of the criticism of Disney in this thread is unwarranted in my opinion. This is what happens when we react to things based upon news articles instead of going to the source and finding information for ourselves.

Essentially, the Plaintiff is claiming that Disney is liable because of representations made on the menu which was displayed on Disney's website. Disney's motion is arguing that the Plaintiff agreed to the clause which applies to the website. From the motion, "The Terms of Use define “Disney Services” as “sites, software, applications, content, products and services”."

The extrapolations that this means you can't have a jury trial if you are injured by a ride because you signed up for Disney+ are ridiculous. That is NOT what Disney is claiming in this motion to compel.

To me, the plaintiff trying to claim that Disney is liable because the menu containing the statements was published on the Disney website is what should be criticized. By the same argument, if a restaurant puts their menu on Facebook with similar statements and something like this happened, the estate of the deceased can add Meta to the lawsuit. More analogous would be a mall or other shopping and dining destination that allows you to view restaurant menus on the website for the mall/destination.

What about Doordash/Uber Eats? Should they be liable if a restaurant says an item is gluten free but it arrives with gluten?

Disney is named as a defendant in this suit simply because their liability insurance has much higher limits and their pockets are much deeper than Great Irish Pubs Florida, Inc.

The merits of the lawsuit is not the issue. The issue is the Disney+ fine print eliminating the right to sue Disney for anything and everything.

 

[Smiley/OCD]

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.

Malls have been sued in liability cases like this…

 

[Chi84]

Yes, but Disney never

The merits of the lawsuit is not the issue. The issue is the Disney+ fine print eliminating the right to sue Disney for anything and everything.

The only problem with that is the fine print does not eliminate the right to sue Disney for anything and everything. It does not eliminate the right to sue Disney at all.

 

[UNCgolf]

I'm not a fan of forced arbitration clauses in what are essentially adhesion contracts between consumers and large corporations, and if I was ever elected or appointed as a judge I'd generally rule against their enforcement.

But that's a completely separate discussion. An arbitration clause doesn't eliminate the right to sue or shield the company from liability.

 

[peter11435]

The issue is the Disney+ fine print eliminating the right to sue Disney for anything and everything.

Thats not what it does. And that’s not what they are arguing here.

 

[Tha Realest]

Thats not what it does. And that’s not what they are arguing here.

The D+ arbitration clause, if enforced, means any possible plaintiff cannot bring suit against TWDC and must settle disputes through an arbitration process.
The reason many are repulsed by this is how broadly they’re expanding the scope of the “click wrap” agreement.

 

[Smiley/OCD]

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.

Cross contamination is ALWAYS a possibility…the only way to avoid it would be to avoid ALL restaurants and consume your own food….i will say this, several years ago, we ate dinner at Art Smith’s Homecoming. My aunt has an allergy to sulfites.she alerted the server, and within 5 minutes, the head chef came over to our table and went over EVERY item on the menu. The chef SHOULD have come over…case closed. Will TWDC be found liable? Probably not, but again, it’s HORRIBLE optics.

 

[peter11435]

The D+ arbitration clause, if enforced, means any possible plaintiff cannot bring suit against TWDC and must settle disputes through an arbitration process.
The reason many are repulsed by this is how broadly they’re expanding the scope of the “click wrap” agreement.

That’s a misrepresentation of the arbitration clause and a misunderstanding of how and why they are applying it here.

 

[DisneyCane]

Yes, but Disney never

The merits of the lawsuit is not the issue. The issue is the Disney+ fine print eliminating the right to sue Disney for anything and everything.

That's not what the fine print said nor what Disney is arguing. The plaintiff is suing Disney because there was supposedly misleading or wrong information on their website. Disney's argument is that the terms and conditions require mediation for anything to do with the website.

 

[Lilofan]

Cross contamination is ALWAYS a possibility…the only way to avoid it would be to avoid ALL restaurants and consume your own food….i will say this, several years ago, we ate dinner at Art Smith’s Homecoming. My aunt has an allergy to sulfites.she alerted the server, and within 5 minutes, the head chef came over to our table and went over EVERY item on the menu. The chef SHOULD have come over…case closed. Will TWDC be found liable? Probably not, but again, it’s HORRIBLE optics.

Unfortunately the doctor who passed away played with her life by risking eating out hoping that the food will be cooked safely. She used her Epi-Pen to try to save herself but it was too late.

 

[DisneyCane]

People keep discussing weather Disney should be part of the suit or not, which is neither here nor there. Disney's response to the suit and attempt at getting it thrown out based on a website agreement is the real story. I agree with @Rhinocerous , it absolutely could have been something they were testing to set a precedent, all you need a is judge to see it their way and boom they got it. If the judge doesn't , no harm because they don't really have any liability to worry about.

Disney is not trying to have the lawsuit thrown out. They are trying to have themselves removed from the suit as a defendant. The suit against the owners of Raglan Road would continue.

 

[DisneyCane]

WUT? A key premise is Disney doesn't believe they should be part of the suit - It's entirely relevant.

Just as significant as someone trying to sue you because you published someone's menu or policies... but weren't the one who actually created or executed those policies.



Disney isn't attempting to get it 'thrown out' - They were making the argument it should be decided in arbitration instead of in this venue.

Stop reading the headlines and read the actual story before trying to tell people they are missing the story.

Better yet, read the actual filings to eliminate reporter spin.

 

[DisneyCane]

I'm not a fan of forced arbitration clauses in what are essentially adhesion contracts between consumers and corporations, and if I was ever elected or appointed as a judge I'd generally rule against their enforcement.

But that's a completely separate discussion. An arbitration clause doesn't eliminate the right to sue or shield the company from liability.

If State law allows it and you rule against it then your ruling should be overruled on appeal and if you continue to make rulings that run counter to the law as written then you should be removed from office.
The judiciary doesn't make the laws, it interprets the laws.

 

[walt7204]

I signed up for an ESPN account years ago, that I use to book my Disney vacations. Im sure I agreed to arbitration when I signed up. If I got hurt at Disney and sued them I would fully expect to have to go to arbitration, just like I would if I was hurt at a sports stadium, concert hall or anywhere else I purchased a ticket. The same concept applies to the Disney plus sign up, since you can use the account for Disney's other services (like booking a vacation). Arbitration is not immunity from liability.