Doctor who died of allergic reaction at Disney Springs

[Anonymous]

Why would they do this instead of quietly settling out of court? To claim that you waived your right to arbitration because of a Disney Plus free trial from years ago…doesn’t Disney have the best lawyers money can buy? What lawyer in their right mind would give the green light for this? It’s insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would they do this instead of quietly settling out of court? To claim that you waived your right to arbitration because of a Disney Plus free trial from years ago…doesn’t Disney have the best lawyers money can buy? What lawyer in their right mind would give the green light for this? It’s insane.

Sometime there is a disconnect between PR people and attorneys. Disney is paying the lawyers to win the case. Usually they are also paying PR people to rein in the attorneys, but it seems like they aren't here.

[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.

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.

I don't think the restaurant is an especially small business. It's a well established corporation that does millions of dollars of business a year. I don't think it is judgment proof at all. I'm not sure why people are so intent on slamming Disney when primary responsibility lies with the restaurant chain who hired the employees, trained the employees, made the representations to the customer that the food was safe, and then served the food.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can have an allergic reaction anywhere between 15 minutes to hours later. A 45-minute delay is completely within the normal range.

None of this proves that she couldn't have been exposed to something after the meal. She could have come into contact with an allergen anywhere.

Sure, if she ate something later. But, if she didn't eat anything later, then no.

This can't be right. Our kids can't eat peanuts at school because other kids might die, remember? So it's not just about what the person with the allergy has eaten supposedly they can die by touching something with the allergen on it like a handrail or door knob. Otherwise why are peanuts banned from school?

What does an individual school policy have to do with this?

As if it was only 1 School.... haha. But we're told no peanut b/c airborne, dust, residue, etc. But everyone is like no, not possible the Dr had to ingest the peanuts no other scenario is possible. Something doesn't add up. [/quote

My spouse works for an allergy and asthma organization. Nut-free schools are not considered a best practice. But policy is driven by fear of lawsuits, not by science.

[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.

You’re clearly not a lawyer. The terms of service thing has nothing to do with liability — it has to do with whether the claims will be decided by a Florida jury in a court or decided by an arbitrator jointly selected by the parties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would they do this instead of quietly settling out of court? To claim that you waived your right to arbitration because of a Disney Plus free trial from years ago…doesn’t Disney have the best lawyers money can buy? What lawyer in their right mind would give the green light for this? It’s insane.

Right now all they are arguing is where the case will be heard. There isnt even enough information to determine whether Disney has any liability. Disney probably has strong grounds to defend. There might be indemnification clauses that prevent settlement. And you never know how reasonable the plaintiffs are. You can’t throw money at every problem.

[Anonymous]

If they rule against the restaurant expect that most restaurants will put disclaimers on the their menus saying that they cannot guarantee there is no cross-contamination and/or they will stop offering allergen free menu items.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re trying to use legal terms here but in a not very convincing way and clearly not as a real attorney. The family probably has a very good case with the restaurant but are throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks to see if they can hold Disney liable as well. And that might not go very far. This is why nobody likes lawyers and they have a reputation for being sleazy. But this is the world we live in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would they do this instead of quietly settling out of court? To claim that you waived your right to arbitration because of a Disney Plus free trial from years ago…doesn’t Disney have the best lawyers money can buy? What lawyer in their right mind would give the green light for this? It’s insane.

Precedent. If Disney settles this case then it invites others. If it hits back hard, then it gets the reputation for not settling.

That said, I think relying on the Disney+ user agreement is absurd. But I'm guessing that's one of many defenses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How can they be sure it was the restaurant food and not something she came in contact with in the 45 mins after she left the restaurant? Maybe a door knob, handrail, faucet, could be anything.

45 minutes is within an hour, as described above. So there is no mystery with the timing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If they rule against the restaurant expect that most restaurants will put disclaimers on the their menus saying that they cannot guarantee there is no cross-contamination and/or they will stop offering allergen free menu items.

Anyone with a severe allergy assumes this already.

[Anonymous]

Serbs did that an episode administered by a physician dud but with.

If my allergies were thus e tree, I would bring my own food.

Not blaming her at all, but it is not like people who work in restaurant kitchens and the waitstaff are all mature , upstanding and reliable.

[Anonymous]

Disney waived their right to arbitration.