No recourse if you have Disneyplus and die in a Disney restaurant

A woman who gad an allergic reaction who died after eating tainted food at a Disney restaurant.

Although explicitly explaining her allergies to the order taker, the foood arrived and the allergens were present. The lady went int anaphylaxis and passed away.

Disney have stated that as she had signed up for Disney plus as a trial, that she agreed to the terms and conditions that absolve Disney of any responsibilities death, loss etc.

This if funked though there is a precedence for it.

I guess all those companies that use lithium batteries nous have a legal out as long as they have buried in the 299th page you absolve them.

This is getting nuts.

www.reuters.com...


time.com...

The biggest travesty in all this is that Disney thinks they are in the right because the victim bought their tickets via Disney+.
Disney put wording in the plus contract that says they have to use arbitration instead of court to go after them for damages.
Ouch

a reply to: Vermilion


Can one think that it is very foolish or brave to order food in such an unfamiliar place?

a reply to: Vermilion

Arbitration is crap, the winner is the one with the better advice, and representative.

The agreement says it has to be settled out of court through arbitration, so it’s not like they’ve no recourse. That being said a good attorney could still drag them into court I believe.

For instance I got hit in my car by a uninsured driver, I had signed a uninsured motorist waiver. My attorney argued the fact that the signed waiver was not properly explained to me from the agent when I signed, and was therefore void. I won the settlement.

I would think a good attorney could make a similar argument. If nothing else it could help increase the settlement in arbitration with the threat of court.

That’s a shady agreement tactic on disneys part nonetheless.

a reply to: KrustyKrab

I understand that you need to settle out of court. The concern here is how can me using Disney plus and agreeing to their terms and conditions then be used as a blanket agreement for all if Disney’s services.

It’s very dodgy conditions. If this does go to court the argument should be the terms and conditions cannot be used as a blanket policy.

a reply to: Cavemannick

That’s kind of what I’m talking about in my post. I doubt it is fully understandable that the Disney + agreement is to encompass all things Disney. I also think a good attorney would be able to sue the restaurant regardless of the + agreement. Just because you agree to terms of service for a streaming service doesn’t give them blanket immunity for all their other entities they own. Let’s say a child died from choking on a Disney toy that broke and his parents had +, I don’t see how that is going to keep them out of court if they couldn’t come to a agreement in arbitration. Victims have the right to seek compensation by any legal means.

I'm pretty sure her husband is the one who signed up, according to his lawyer, so the Disney plus agreement doesn't hold up.

a reply to: sine.nomine

It wouldn’t surprise me if they have wording in the t&c s that if on person in the household signed up, the blanket agreement applied to everyone at the property address.

These people are scum. Disney that is.

a reply to: KrustyKrab

Thought if it was. Trial and you opted out in the trial period. Are the Disney terms and conditions a lifetime agreement even if you cancel your subscription. I wonder.

a reply to: Cavemannick

I don't doubt that. Disney is truly a disgusting entity. I'm kind of shocked at why more people don't boycott the entire brand. I'd list off all the horrible things they do but it's already well-known by nearly everyone.

Ignoring the absolute lunacy of Disney's argument in this case, these arbitration clauses should be banned full stop. I don't see why a corporation has the power to strip you of a constitutional right.

People often fire back with "but arbitration often favours the injured party over the corporation" well if it was so pro-little guy why would corporations insist on including them in absolutely everything?

a reply to: Cavemannick

Jeez. Wonder what I've agreed to.over the years. I've had Disney+/Hulu, there's probably a list of companies I've agreed to not sue.

Probably can't sue Disney, Viacom, Comcast, Apple, Costco, Uber, Lyft, Amazon, but I'm still not reading those damn things.

Who knows what else I've agreed to?

Disney is pure evil with everything they do.
No other way to put it .... evil.

originally posted by: CosmicFocus
a reply to: Vermilion


Can one think that it is very foolish or brave to order food in such an unfamiliar place?

Exactly, that’s the same thing as playing Russian roulette.

You can't waive negligence.

Well, I guess this puts to bed any notion of Disney being a wholesome, family oriented company. (Incase there might have been any lingering doubt)

The lawsuit has nothing to do with Disney+. If you read the issue the agreement that is being discussed is from the EPCOT Ticket that the family bought that has the same wording as the Disney+ agreement. Since the family bought the EPCOT ticket, Disney believes that the arbitration rule should be followed for this incident.

Now to be fair even under Contract Law Disney doesn't have any standing given that their restaurant stated that the food consumed was safe for the person with the food allergies to consume. By the person dying proves that this wasn't the case, Disney voided their own agreement by defaulting on the matter. Any decent Lawyer can get this family what they want, but also needed to be aware of is that most of the Lawyers in that area are also under the privilege of Disney and will most likely not fight well if at all if hired. The family would be best to get a Lawyer in their own state to sue.

Mickey mouse Stabs a woman to death and takes the children!
Father has no legal recourse!

Disney is Evil.

a reply to: Ohanka

...well if it was so pro-little guy why would corporations insist on including them in absolutely everything?

Why? Simple; because it reduces legal costs...on both sides.