Doctor who died of allergic reaction at Disney Springs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We went to Disney this summer, and I could not tell the difference between restaurants in the app with regard to Disney vs not Disney owned. It seems like this woman seemed to reasonably follow the protocols according to Disney app and website (alerting the server about allergy to initiate protocol).

Where does the app mention allergy accommodations?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone following the lawsuit updates? Disney is citing TOS from signing up for Disney + to force arbitration. They’re also claiming they don’t own/operate the restaurant even though it is on Disney property in an area with the name Disney Springs.

Ultimately Disney may be able to win in the court of law on this, but I can’t help but think this is not going to go over well in the court of public opinion. Had they just settled I imagine a lot of people (outside the allergy community) may have forgotten about this incident. But now we are all realizing we’re signing over any rights to sue for anything totally unrelated just by signing up to watch movies.

Also, the average customer is going to expect a restaurant on Disney property to have some sort of oversight by Disney. It seems disingenuous that they’ll put their name on something so it can make them more money S landlord, but then say sorry we’re not responsible.

It reminds me of the little girl who was killed by a pool suction pipe when the cap was negligently not installed following a renovation. The hotel was called a Hilton but Hilton claims they just license out the name and aren’t responsible for the hotel. This creates such a false sense that when you’re eating at a restaurant, staying at a hotel, etc. that certain standards are being met based on the company’s reputation. This seems so unfair to consumers I don’t see how this allowed.

I don’t think it’s like the Hilton thing. Disney springs is basically just a mall. I don’t expect Disney to be responsible for the stuff Uniqlo sells at the disney spring store or the Starbucks at the disney spring store.
The arbitration thing with disney plus is a little more weird but is her basis for suing disney that she made the reservation on the disney app? If her basis for the suit was that she used the app, that makes sense that the TOS would apply.

Yeah, anyone at all familiar with Disney knows that many of the Disney Springs restaurants are just renting space and aren't part of Disney. It's not a secret and there are different rules for these restaurants. For instance, for Disney restaurants you book reservations through the Disney system, but for independent restaurants you book through Open Table.

That said, Raglan Road isn't a small operation and shouldn't be judgment proof. There are a few locations and they do tons of business at Disney Springs alone.

https://www.opentable.com/restaurant/profile/8023?ref=android-share&refid=123

I haven’t read the complaint, but there is supposedly Disney branded advertising stating the place was allergy free

Its not an allergy free restaurant.

DP. To clarify: The couple chose the restaurant based on an app Disney created and Disney provides to park users; the app said this restaurant could accommodate her allergy. That is key to why Disney, not just the restaurant, is being sued. Disney-provided information directed allergic guests to this restaurant specifically. Disney doesn't own or run the restaurant, but gave guests the assurance this restaurant was "safe."

Separately--The fact that the woman was not merely given a trace of the allergens but ingested massive amounts of BOTH her fatal allergens in her one dish is insane. That level seems to me to go into the most profound negligence imaginable. "Mistake" seems nowhere near serious enough an explanation for giving a huge amount of two allergens to an allergic patron--who had carefully alerted the server and inquired more than once about the food. (Detailed coverage of the case has shown she had a massive amount of allergens in her system after eating food she was assured did not contain them.)

Can you provide a link to this? I just skimmed a handful of articles and none provided this information.

It was not ONE dish. I remember this from when this first came out. She ordered like 5 different dishes which seems insane given all her allergens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone following the lawsuit updates? Disney is citing TOS from signing up for Disney + to force arbitration. They’re also claiming they don’t own/operate the restaurant even though it is on Disney property in an area with the name Disney Springs.

Ultimately Disney may be able to win in the court of law on this, but I can’t help but think this is not going to go over well in the court of public opinion. Had they just settled I imagine a lot of people (outside the allergy community) may have forgotten about this incident. But now we are all realizing we’re signing over any rights to sue for anything totally unrelated just by signing up to watch movies.

Also, the average customer is going to expect a restaurant on Disney property to have some sort of oversight by Disney. It seems disingenuous that they’ll put their name on something so it can make them more money S landlord, but then say sorry we’re not responsible.

It reminds me of the little girl who was killed by a pool suction pipe when the cap was negligently not installed following a renovation. The hotel was called a Hilton but Hilton claims they just license out the name and aren’t responsible for the hotel. This creates such a false sense that when you’re eating at a restaurant, staying at a hotel, etc. that certain standards are being met based on the company’s reputation. This seems so unfair to consumers I don’t see how this allowed.

I don’t think it’s like the Hilton thing. Disney springs is basically just a mall. I don’t expect Disney to be responsible for the stuff Uniqlo sells at the disney spring store or the Starbucks at the disney spring store.
The arbitration thing with disney plus is a little more weird but is her basis for suing disney that she made the reservation on the disney app? If her basis for the suit was that she used the app, that makes sense that the TOS would apply.

Yeah, anyone at all familiar with Disney knows that many of the Disney Springs restaurants are just renting space and aren't part of Disney. It's not a secret and there are different rules for these restaurants. For instance, for Disney restaurants you book reservations through the Disney system, but for independent restaurants you book through Open Table.

That said, Raglan Road isn't a small operation and shouldn't be judgment proof. There are a few locations and they do tons of business at Disney Springs alone.

https://www.opentable.com/restaurant/profile/8023?ref=android-share&refid=123

I haven’t read the complaint, but there is supposedly Disney branded advertising stating the place was allergy free

Its not an allergy free restaurant.

DP. To clarify: The couple chose the restaurant based on an app Disney created and Disney provides to park users; the app said this restaurant could accommodate her allergy. That is key to why Disney, not just the restaurant, is being sued. Disney-provided information directed allergic guests to this restaurant specifically. Disney doesn't own or run the restaurant, but gave guests the assurance this restaurant was "safe."

Separately--The fact that the woman was not merely given a trace of the allergens but ingested massive amounts of BOTH her fatal allergens in her one dish is insane. That level seems to me to go into the most profound negligence imaginable. "Mistake" seems nowhere near serious enough an explanation for giving a huge amount of two allergens to an allergic patron--who had carefully alerted the server and inquired more than once about the food. (Detailed coverage of the case has shown she had a massive amount of allergens in her system after eating food she was assured did not contain them.)

It's almost enough to make one suspect the MIL...

[Anonymous]

So scary, especially when a restaurant represents that they are taking all the precautions. Awful tragedy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone following the lawsuit updates? Disney is citing TOS from signing up for Disney + to force arbitration. They’re also claiming they don’t own/operate the restaurant even though it is on Disney property in an area with the name Disney Springs.

Ultimately Disney may be able to win in the court of law on this, but I can’t help but think this is not going to go over well in the court of public opinion. Had they just settled I imagine a lot of people (outside the allergy community) may have forgotten about this incident. But now we are all realizing we’re signing over any rights to sue for anything totally unrelated just by signing up to watch movies.

Also, the average customer is going to expect a restaurant on Disney property to have some sort of oversight by Disney. It seems disingenuous that they’ll put their name on something so it can make them more money S landlord, but then say sorry we’re not responsible.

It reminds me of the little girl who was killed by a pool suction pipe when the cap was negligently not installed following a renovation. The hotel was called a Hilton but Hilton claims they just license out the name and aren’t responsible for the hotel. This creates such a false sense that when you’re eating at a restaurant, staying at a hotel, etc. that certain standards are being met based on the company’s reputation. This seems so unfair to consumers I don’t see how this allowed.

I don’t think it’s like the Hilton thing. Disney springs is basically just a mall. I don’t expect Disney to be responsible for the stuff Uniqlo sells at the disney spring store or the Starbucks at the disney spring store.
The arbitration thing with disney plus is a little more weird but is her basis for suing disney that she made the reservation on the disney app? If her basis for the suit was that she used the app, that makes sense that the TOS would apply.

No, that is not the basis of the claim against Disney at all. See the post above. Disney assured guests that this restaurant was able to accommodate allergies. Nothing to do with how the couple booked the vacation.

There are terms of service to use the Disney app. The same app used to book the restaurant. I’m going to guess Disney has all their bases covered there so that this lawsuit won’t go very far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone following the lawsuit updates? Disney is citing TOS from signing up for Disney + to force arbitration. They’re also claiming they don’t own/operate the restaurant even though it is on Disney property in an area with the name Disney Springs.

Ultimately Disney may be able to win in the court of law on this, but I can’t help but think this is not going to go over well in the court of public opinion. Had they just settled I imagine a lot of people (outside the allergy community) may have forgotten about this incident. But now we are all realizing we’re signing over any rights to sue for anything totally unrelated just by signing up to watch movies.

Also, the average customer is going to expect a restaurant on Disney property to have some sort of oversight by Disney. It seems disingenuous that they’ll put their name on something so it can make them more money S landlord, but then say sorry we’re not responsible.

It reminds me of the little girl who was killed by a pool suction pipe when the cap was negligently not installed following a renovation. The hotel was called a Hilton but Hilton claims they just license out the name and aren’t responsible for the hotel. This creates such a false sense that when you’re eating at a restaurant, staying at a hotel, etc. that certain standards are being met based on the company’s reputation. This seems so unfair to consumers I don’t see how this allowed.

This article (link below) is very detailed and lays out the events, use of the app to find the restaurant, and Disney's claim that by signing up for a free trial of a streaming service years earlier, the husband waived any right to sue Disney over a death in one of its theme parks. Insane. Probably legal of Disney, since it is infamous for having sharks for lawyers, but morally insane. Sure! We all equate getting a month of some streaming service with our rights in a theme park years later, right?! After this, we will. It's a sh**ty look for Disney, however technically legal it may be.



I don’t think it’s like the Hilton thing. Disney springs is basically just a mall. I don’t expect Disney to be responsible for the stuff Uniqlo sells at the disney spring store or the Starbucks at the disney spring store.
The arbitration thing with disney plus is a little more weird but is her basis for suing disney that she made the reservation on the disney app? If her basis for the suit was that she used the app, that makes sense that the TOS would apply.

Yeah, anyone at all familiar with Disney knows that many of the Disney Springs restaurants are just renting space and aren't part of Disney. It's not a secret and there are different rules for these restaurants. For instance, for Disney restaurants you book reservations through the Disney system, but for independent restaurants you book through Open Table.

That said, Raglan Road isn't a small operation and shouldn't be judgment proof. There are a few locations and they do tons of business at Disney Springs alone.

https://www.opentable.com/restaurant/profile/8023?ref=android-share&refid=123

I haven’t read the complaint, but there is supposedly Disney branded advertising stating the place was allergy free

Its not an allergy free restaurant.

DP. To clarify: The couple chose the restaurant based on an app Disney created and Disney provides to park users; the app said this restaurant could accommodate her allergy. That is key to why Disney, not just the restaurant, is being sued. Disney-provided information directed allergic guests to this restaurant specifically. Disney doesn't own or run the restaurant, but gave guests the assurance this restaurant was "safe."

Separately--The fact that the woman was not merely given a trace of the allergens but ingested massive amounts of BOTH her fatal allergens in her one dish is insane. That level seems to me to go into the most profound negligence imaginable. "Mistake" seems nowhere near serious enough an explanation for giving a huge amount of two allergens to an allergic patron--who had carefully alerted the server and inquired more than once about the food. (Detailed coverage of the case has shown she had a massive amount of allergens in her system after eating food she was assured did not contain them.)

Can you provide a link to this? I just skimmed a handful of articles and none provided this information.

Here's the detailed article from the Washington Post. It is going to be behind a paywall for you unless you have a subscription, I think, but if you Google "Disney allergy death" it might turn up as a readable link via other publications that use Post articles.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/08/15/disney-death-terms-of-service-florida/

It details how they used Disney's app to find the restaurant, how the service of the food was handled, and how Disney claims the husband's signing up for a free trial of a streaming service years earlier negated any ability to sue over a death in a Disney theme park years later. Hey, we all equate a long-forgotten streaming trial with our spouse dropping dead on vacation years later--right?! Well, we will now.

Disney's claim may be legal but it's morally sh**ty of Disney. Well, now we know that the House of Mouse owns you if you interact with ANY of their products in any way.

[Anonymous]

I have a kid with severe allergies and we usually watch carefully for 2 hours when we suspect the chance of exposure. It’s very hard, especially when the child was very young and it was already bedtime!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone following the lawsuit updates? Disney is citing TOS from signing up for Disney + to force arbitration. They’re also claiming they don’t own/operate the restaurant even though it is on Disney property in an area with the name Disney Springs.

Ultimately Disney may be able to win in the court of law on this, but I can’t help but think this is not going to go over well in the court of public opinion. Had they just settled I imagine a lot of people (outside the allergy community) may have forgotten about this incident. But now we are all realizing we’re signing over any rights to sue for anything totally unrelated just by signing up to watch movies.

Also, the average customer is going to expect a restaurant on Disney property to have some sort of oversight by Disney. It seems disingenuous that they’ll put their name on something so it can make them more money S landlord, but then say sorry we’re not responsible.

It reminds me of the little girl who was killed by a pool suction pipe when the cap was negligently not installed following a renovation. The hotel was called a Hilton but Hilton claims they just license out the name and aren’t responsible for the hotel. This creates such a false sense that when you’re eating at a restaurant, staying at a hotel, etc. that certain standards are being met based on the company’s reputation. This seems so unfair to consumers I don’t see how this allowed.

I don’t think it’s like the Hilton thing. Disney springs is basically just a mall. I don’t expect Disney to be responsible for the stuff Uniqlo sells at the disney spring store or the Starbucks at the disney spring store.
The arbitration thing with disney plus is a little more weird but is her basis for suing disney that she made the reservation on the disney app? If her basis for the suit was that she used the app, that makes sense that the TOS would apply.

No, that is not the basis of the claim against Disney at all. See the post above. Disney assured guests that this restaurant was able to accommodate allergies. Nothing to do with how the couple booked the vacation.

There are terms of service to use the Disney app. The same app used to book the restaurant. I’m going to guess Disney has all their bases covered there so that this lawsuit won’t go very far.

They’ll still get crushed in arbitration. If the husband wants the details public, he’ll appeal the arbitration ruling and attach whatever he wants to get out to his appeal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone following the lawsuit updates? Disney is citing TOS from signing up for Disney + to force arbitration. They’re also claiming they don’t own/operate the restaurant even though it is on Disney property in an area with the name Disney Springs.

Ultimately Disney may be able to win in the court of law on this, but I can’t help but think this is not going to go over well in the court of public opinion. Had they just settled I imagine a lot of people (outside the allergy community) may have forgotten about this incident. But now we are all realizing we’re signing over any rights to sue for anything totally unrelated just by signing up to watch movies.

Also, the average customer is going to expect a restaurant on Disney property to have some sort of oversight by Disney. It seems disingenuous that they’ll put their name on something so it can make them more money S landlord, but then say sorry we’re not responsible.

It reminds me of the little girl who was killed by a pool suction pipe when the cap was negligently not installed following a renovation. The hotel was called a Hilton but Hilton claims they just license out the name and aren’t responsible for the hotel. This creates such a false sense that when you’re eating at a restaurant, staying at a hotel, etc. that certain standards are being met based on the company’s reputation. This seems so unfair to consumers I don’t see how this allowed.

I don’t think it’s like the Hilton thing. Disney springs is basically just a mall. I don’t expect Disney to be responsible for the stuff Uniqlo sells at the disney spring store or the Starbucks at the disney spring store.
The arbitration thing with disney plus is a little more weird but is her basis for suing disney that she made the reservation on the disney app? If her basis for the suit was that she used the app, that makes sense that the TOS would apply.

I’m with the PP that it is like the Hilton thing. People trust these big names versus some random small company that they’d be a lot more suspicious about.

[Anonymous]

So sad. I have horrible food allergies and have almost died 3 times, throat closing up, had to do the epi-pen and hospital admission. Now I don't go out to eat it's just too risky to trust kitchen folks anymore.

There is not enough awareness in kitchens about this!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone following the lawsuit updates? Disney is citing TOS from signing up for Disney + to force arbitration. They’re also claiming they don’t own/operate the restaurant even though it is on Disney property in an area with the name Disney Springs.

Ultimately Disney may be able to win in the court of law on this, but I can’t help but think this is not going to go over well in the court of public opinion. Had they just settled I imagine a lot of people (outside the allergy community) may have forgotten about this incident. But now we are all realizing we’re signing over any rights to sue for anything totally unrelated just by signing up to watch movies.

Also, the average customer is going to expect a restaurant on Disney property to have some sort of oversight by Disney. It seems disingenuous that they’ll put their name on something so it can make them more money S landlord, but then say sorry we’re not responsible.

It reminds me of the little girl who was killed by a pool suction pipe when the cap was negligently not installed following a renovation. The hotel was called a Hilton but Hilton claims they just license out the name and aren’t responsible for the hotel. This creates such a false sense that when you’re eating at a restaurant, staying at a hotel, etc. that certain standards are being met based on the company’s reputation. This seems so unfair to consumers I don’t see how this allowed.

I don’t think it’s like the Hilton thing. Disney springs is basically just a mall. I don’t expect Disney to be responsible for the stuff Uniqlo sells at the disney spring store or the Starbucks at the disney spring store.
The arbitration thing with disney plus is a little more weird but is her basis for suing disney that she made the reservation on the disney app? If her basis for the suit was that she used the app, that makes sense that the TOS would apply.

No, that is not the basis of the claim against Disney at all. See the post above. Disney assured guests that this restaurant was able to accommodate allergies. Nothing to do with how the couple booked the vacation.

There are terms of service to use the Disney app. The same app used to book the restaurant. I’m going to guess Disney has all their bases covered there so that this lawsuit won’t go very far.

This suit does not say Disney isn't liable JUST because of the restaurant information in the app. It's saying Disney isn't liable because of fine print in its Disney+ streaming terms of service. Years before the couple ever visited the theme park. Do you associate getting a streaming service with your in-person visit to a theme park? Most normal people wouldn't. And before you can say, "Read the fine print blah blah, it's always on you as the customer" -- Again, this is about using terms of service on a very different product to cover every interaction ever, even one resulting in death. Legal, maybe; Disney's infamous for its shark lawyering. But I hope Disney takes a massive PR hit from this.

This, combined with their recent, terrible changes to how they handle disability access in their parks, Disney is unashamedly showing its bald-faced contempt for its own "guests" as mere cash cows. Disney expects people will pay to visit/buy/stream all things Disney, so screw treating people humanely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone following the lawsuit updates? Disney is citing TOS from signing up for Disney + to force arbitration. They’re also claiming they don’t own/operate the restaurant even though it is on Disney property in an area with the name Disney Springs.

Ultimately Disney may be able to win in the court of law on this, but I can’t help but think this is not going to go over well in the court of public opinion. Had they just settled I imagine a lot of people (outside the allergy community) may have forgotten about this incident. But now we are all realizing we’re signing over any rights to sue for anything totally unrelated just by signing up to watch movies.

Also, the average customer is going to expect a restaurant on Disney property to have some sort of oversight by Disney. It seems disingenuous that they’ll put their name on something so it can make them more money S landlord, but then say sorry we’re not responsible.

It reminds me of the little girl who was killed by a pool suction pipe when the cap was negligently not installed following a renovation. The hotel was called a Hilton but Hilton claims they just license out the name and aren’t responsible for the hotel. This creates such a false sense that when you’re eating at a restaurant, staying at a hotel, etc. that certain standards are being met based on the company’s reputation. This seems so unfair to consumers I don’t see how this allowed.

I don’t think it’s like the Hilton thing. Disney springs is basically just a mall. I don’t expect Disney to be responsible for the stuff Uniqlo sells at the disney spring store or the Starbucks at the disney spring store.
The arbitration thing with disney plus is a little more weird but is her basis for suing disney that she made the reservation on the disney app? If her basis for the suit was that she used the app, that makes sense that the TOS would apply.

I’m with the PP that it is like the Hilton thing. People trust these big names versus some random small company that they’d be a lot more suspicious about.

+1

And then the big companies get to hide behind "We were just letting them use our brand!" as a shield against any responsibility. Maybe the Hiltons and Disneys et. al. need to care a little about how their brand gets tarnished. But since they tend to win suits like this, they don't have to give a crap. A new news cycle comes along and the victims get forgotten over time, and the brand looks as shiny as ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone following the lawsuit updates? Disney is citing TOS from signing up for Disney + to force arbitration. They’re also claiming they don’t own/operate the restaurant even though it is on Disney property in an area with the name Disney Springs.

Ultimately Disney may be able to win in the court of law on this, but I can’t help but think this is not going to go over well in the court of public opinion. Had they just settled I imagine a lot of people (outside the allergy community) may have forgotten about this incident. But now we are all realizing we’re signing over any rights to sue for anything totally unrelated just by signing up to watch movies.

Also, the average customer is going to expect a restaurant on Disney property to have some sort of oversight by Disney. It seems disingenuous that they’ll put their name on something so it can make them more money S landlord, but then say sorry we’re not responsible.

It reminds me of the little girl who was killed by a pool suction pipe when the cap was negligently not installed following a renovation. The hotel was called a Hilton but Hilton claims they just license out the name and aren’t responsible for the hotel. This creates such a false sense that when you’re eating at a restaurant, staying at a hotel, etc. that certain standards are being met based on the company’s reputation. This seems so unfair to consumers I don’t see how this allowed.

I don’t think it’s like the Hilton thing. Disney springs is basically just a mall. I don’t expect Disney to be responsible for the stuff Uniqlo sells at the disney spring store or the Starbucks at the disney spring store.
The arbitration thing with disney plus is a little more weird but is her basis for suing disney that she made the reservation on the disney app? If her basis for the suit was that she used the app, that makes sense that the TOS would apply.

Yeah, anyone at all familiar with Disney knows that many of the Disney Springs restaurants are just renting space and aren't part of Disney. It's not a secret and there are different rules for these restaurants. For instance, for Disney restaurants you book reservations through the Disney system, but for independent restaurants you book through Open Table.

That said, Raglan Road isn't a small operation and shouldn't be judgment proof. There are a few locations and they do tons of business at Disney Springs alone.

https://www.opentable.com/restaurant/profile/8023?ref=android-share&refid=123

I haven’t read the complaint, but there is supposedly Disney branded advertising stating the place was allergy free

Its not an allergy free restaurant.

DP. To clarify: The couple chose the restaurant based on an app Disney created and Disney provides to park users; the app said this restaurant could accommodate her allergy. That is key to why Disney, not just the restaurant, is being sued. Disney-provided information directed allergic guests to this restaurant specifically. Disney doesn't own or run the restaurant, but gave guests the assurance this restaurant was "safe."

Separately--The fact that the woman was not merely given a trace of the allergens but ingested massive amounts of BOTH her fatal allergens in her one dish is insane. That level seems to me to go into the most profound negligence imaginable. "Mistake" seems nowhere near serious enough an explanation for giving a huge amount of two allergens to an allergic patron--who had carefully alerted the server and inquired more than once about the food. (Detailed coverage of the case has shown she had a massive amount of allergens in her system after eating food she was assured did not contain them.)

Can you provide a link to this? I just skimmed a handful of articles and none provided this information.

It was not ONE dish. I remember this from when this first came out. She ordered like 5 different dishes which seems insane given all her allergens.

One dish or five, shouldn't matter.

She asked repeatedly, did her due diligence by asking repeatedly. She had a right, after being assured (1) by the restaurant's listing as accommodating, per Disney's app (2) by the server (3) by her own careful inquiries, to feel she could act like a regular person and simply enjoy the basic social act of eating out. Don't judge it as "insane" that she ordered whatever she ordered; judge it as insane that any establishment in 2024 was so jaw-droppingly cavalier with people's lives. In her case, it cost her that life. Who knows how many other guests have been sickened, possibly seriously, by this place, but since they didn't die, or were sick later and didn't trace it back to this restaurant, it isn't known publicly?

Those of us without food allergies are so freaking oblivious about the unending mental and emotional stress of being told by strangers all the time: Stay home, then. Never go out, or carry 100 percent of all you consume, if you do go anywhere.

God forbid that people with allergies should ever run out of the food they carry. Or should want simply to do what you or I can do without a single thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone following the lawsuit updates? Disney is citing TOS from signing up for Disney + to force arbitration. They’re also claiming they don’t own/operate the restaurant even though it is on Disney property in an area with the name Disney Springs.

Ultimately Disney may be able to win in the court of law on this, but I can’t help but think this is not going to go over well in the court of public opinion. Had they just settled I imagine a lot of people (outside the allergy community) may have forgotten about this incident. But now we are all realizing we’re signing over any rights to sue for anything totally unrelated just by signing up to watch movies.

Also, the average customer is going to expect a restaurant on Disney property to have some sort of oversight by Disney. It seems disingenuous that they’ll put their name on something so it can make them more money S landlord, but then say sorry we’re not responsible.

It reminds me of the little girl who was killed by a pool suction pipe when the cap was negligently not installed following a renovation. The hotel was called a Hilton but Hilton claims they just license out the name and aren’t responsible for the hotel. This creates such a false sense that when you’re eating at a restaurant, staying at a hotel, etc. that certain standards are being met based on the company’s reputation. This seems so unfair to consumers I don’t see how this allowed.

I don’t think it’s like the Hilton thing. Disney springs is basically just a mall. I don’t expect Disney to be responsible for the stuff Uniqlo sells at the disney spring store or the Starbucks at the disney spring store.
The arbitration thing with disney plus is a little more weird but is her basis for suing disney that she made the reservation on the disney app? If her basis for the suit was that she used the app, that makes sense that the TOS would apply.

No, that is not the basis of the claim against Disney at all. See the post above. Disney assured guests that this restaurant was able to accommodate allergies. Nothing to do with how the couple booked the vacation.

There are terms of service to use the Disney app. The same app used to book the restaurant. I’m going to guess Disney has all their bases covered there so that this lawsuit won’t go very far.

This suit does not say Disney isn't liable JUST because of the restaurant information in the app. It's saying Disney isn't liable because of fine print in its Disney+ streaming terms of service. Years before the couple ever visited the theme park. Do you associate getting a streaming service with your in-person visit to a theme park? Most normal people wouldn't. And before you can say, "Read the fine print blah blah, it's always on you as the customer" -- Again, this is about using terms of service on a very different product to cover every interaction ever, even one resulting in death. Legal, maybe; Disney's infamous for its shark lawyering. But I hope Disney takes a massive PR hit from this.

This, combined with their recent, terrible changes to how they handle disability access in their parks, Disney is unashamedly showing its bald-faced contempt for its own "guests" as mere cash cows. Disney expects people will pay to visit/buy/stream all things Disney, so screw treating people humanely.

At this point I don’t think it is about liability at all (although that doubtless will arise later) but rather in what forum the issues vis a vis Disney will be litigated. Even that issue will get more complicated if there is no arbitration agreement allegedly covering the restaurant itself.

As for “getting killed” in arbitration, a large portion of the damages in a wrongful death/survivorship claim are pretty much mathematical depending on which side’s economist the finder of fact decides to go with. What else might be in play would depend on multiple factors, including any Florida damages limits and the personality of the jurors in the relevant jurisdiction.

Also, I’m not clear on exactly who Disney says is required to arbitrate. The decedent/her estate, or the husband, or everybody?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone following the lawsuit updates? Disney is citing TOS from signing up for Disney + to force arbitration. They’re also claiming they don’t own/operate the restaurant even though it is on Disney property in an area with the name Disney Springs.

Ultimately Disney may be able to win in the court of law on this, but I can’t help but think this is not going to go over well in the court of public opinion. Had they just settled I imagine a lot of people (outside the allergy community) may have forgotten about this incident. But now we are all realizing we’re signing over any rights to sue for anything totally unrelated just by signing up to watch movies.

Also, the average customer is going to expect a restaurant on Disney property to have some sort of oversight by Disney. It seems disingenuous that they’ll put their name on something so it can make them more money S landlord, but then say sorry we’re not responsible.

It reminds me of the little girl who was killed by a pool suction pipe when the cap was negligently not installed following a renovation. The hotel was called a Hilton but Hilton claims they just license out the name and aren’t responsible for the hotel. This creates such a false sense that when you’re eating at a restaurant, staying at a hotel, etc. that certain standards are being met based on the company’s reputation. This seems so unfair to consumers I don’t see how this allowed.

I don’t think it’s like the Hilton thing. Disney springs is basically just a mall. I don’t expect Disney to be responsible for the stuff Uniqlo sells at the disney spring store or the Starbucks at the disney spring store.
The arbitration thing with disney plus is a little more weird but is her basis for suing disney that she made the reservation on the disney app? If her basis for the suit was that she used the app, that makes sense that the TOS would apply.

No, that is not the basis of the claim against Disney at all. See the post above. Disney assured guests that this restaurant was able to accommodate allergies. Nothing to do with how the couple booked the vacation.

There are terms of service to use the Disney app. The same app used to book the restaurant. I’m going to guess Disney has all their bases covered there so that this lawsuit won’t go very far.

This suit does not say Disney isn't liable JUST because of the restaurant information in the app. It's saying Disney isn't liable because of fine print in its Disney+ streaming terms of service. Years before the couple ever visited the theme park. Do you associate getting a streaming service with your in-person visit to a theme park? Most normal people wouldn't. And before you can say, "Read the fine print blah blah, it's always on you as the customer" -- Again, this is about using terms of service on a very different product to cover every interaction ever, even one resulting in death. Legal, maybe; Disney's infamous for its shark lawyering. But I hope Disney takes a massive PR hit from this.

This, combined with their recent, terrible changes to how they handle disability access in their parks, Disney is unashamedly showing its bald-faced contempt for its own "guests" as mere cash cows. Disney expects people will pay to visit/buy/stream all things Disney, so screw treating people humanely.

At this point I don’t think it is about liability at all (although that doubtless will arise later) but rather in what forum the issues vis a vis Disney will be litigated. Even that issue will get more complicated if there is no arbitration agreement allegedly covering the restaurant itself.

As for “getting killed” in arbitration, a large portion of the damages in a wrongful death/survivorship claim are pretty much mathematical depending on which side’s economist the finder of fact decides to go with. What else might be in play would depend on multiple factors, including any Florida damages limits and the personality of the jurors in the relevant jurisdiction.

Also, I’m not clear on exactly who Disney says is required to arbitrate. The decedent/her estate, or the husband, or everybody?

I'm not the PP who talked about Disney getting crushed in any arbitration. I simply think Disney is morally horrible, whatever the legalities end up being here. And the sheer sneakiness of "sign up for streaming and sign your rights away in every location, situation and context, forever" is, while possibly legal, just evil.