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]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]

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]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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 [i]you[/i] 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. [/quote]

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?[/quote]

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. [/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