Doctor who died of allergic reaction at Disney Springs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She was alone after. I wonder if they have retraced her steps and what stores she went to.

Given she's been navigating this allergy successfully for years, it was most likely the restaurant's poor food handling and not her buying something random from a store. But, they can check for that.

But can’t some of these allergies be triggered by exposure through air or contact? She passed out in planet Hollywood which is itself a restaurant—if they were frying food in peanut oil, might that do it? Or if some kid with PB covered hands had oicked up the item she was browsing before her?
I’ve seen some people recommend always traveling with two epi pens because one is insufficient for a severe reaction. Sounds like she self administered one but didn’t have a second and it didn’t mention Benadryl which may have also bought her some time.

I do think restaurants need better processes for dealing with allergens. With so many chefs working in back plus now many things are sourced outside the restaurant (sauces etc), it’s very difficult to get a definitive answer in a large hectic restaurant like this.

Best practice is probably not to split up after a meal like this, just in case.

Knowing what I know about restaurants I am really surprised people with severe allergies eat out at all. It is literally putting your life in the hands of a whole bunch of people who are not qualified for it.

+1

My aunt has severe allergies as well as celiac disease. When she goes out to eat she brings her own food in baggies. So she can participate but won’t eat anything.

I have another aunt with celiacs and diabetes and she eats at like one restaurant in her town and one restaurant on vacation (same place every year). She’s vetted them over time and just orders her one meal off the menu.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

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

[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.

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is so awful.

And legally gross. Disney won’t let it go to court. The victim signed up for Disney Plus & in the agreement there is an item saying that any legal matters would be dealt through arbitration instead of the courtroom. Bogus.

Add it to the list of reasons not to sign up for Disney Plus. Gross.

[Anonymous]

It wasn’t just Disney+ they also bought Epcot tickets online. Nobody reads the fine print.

[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.

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.

[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.

Thank you! We have a porcelain Disney Springs thing and now I know I can chuck it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It wasn’t just Disney+ they also bought Epcot tickets online. Nobody reads the fine print.

Are you saying that buying Epcot tickets or Disney Plus equals us signing away our rights to sue if Disney is negligent? If so, that is wild.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It wasn’t just Disney+ they also bought Epcot tickets online. Nobody reads the fine print.

Are you saying that buying Epcot tickets or Disney Plus equals us signing away our rights to sue if Disney is negligent? If so, that is wild.

Am I the judge? That’s what Disney is saying. Do you want to understand what’s going on here or not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It wasn’t just Disney+ they also bought Epcot tickets online. Nobody reads the fine print.

Are you saying that buying Epcot tickets or Disney Plus equals us signing away our rights to sue if Disney is negligent? If so, that is wild.

When you click through all that fine print and check a box, you are likely agreeing to arbitration. This is true with probably 95% of those "agreements." It is by no means exclusive to Disney.

[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.

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.)

[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.

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.

[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.)

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

[Anonymous]

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).