Reply to Doctor who died of allergic reaction at Disney Springs

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "Doctor who died of allergic reaction at Disney Springs"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.[/quote]

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 [i]a free trial of a streaming service years earlier[/i], 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.

[/quote]
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.

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

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

Its not an allergy free restaurant.[/quote]

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."

[b]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. [/b]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.)[/quote]

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

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. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics