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

a reply to: Scratchpost

No, these types of clauses are known as the... "God save us All" ...clause.

Under no circumstances do these types of clauses trump proven negligence or culpability.

So yes, Disney is evil, but no Mickey can't stab a woman and have the 'God save us All' clause get him, or Disney, out of it.

There are several different things going on in this case / discussion. It's important to separate them into their proper categories. These are:

1. Arbitration vs. Litigation in a Court of Law.

2. How broadly and how 'durable' a "Hold-Harmless" (i.e. God Save us All) clause is, and under what circumstances it applies and/or doesn't apply.

3. Legal issues arising out of food allergies and the like.

4. The concept under the law known as 'Acceptance of the Risk'.

5. The concept of 'reasonable care' and/or 'reckless or wonton' disregard for the same.

In the above discussion (here on ATS, and in the linked articles) seems to be focused mostly on item #1 (arbitration vs. litigation in court). While I am not a big fan of arbitration, it does have its pros and cons. On the one hand it does reduce legal fees on both sides. On the other hand, arguments presented are often flawed and because there is no legal representation to prevent this, judgements can be rendered without all the facts being presented properly. In any case, just because a contract stipulates arbitration as the means for dispute resolution doesn't mean that actual litigation is forever prohibited. Arbitration can be objected to if proper legal basis is presented. Crimes having been committed is a good example of one of the reasons.

Disney are scumbags (now). That they would play such a sh!tty tactic as the one they are playing is disgraceful. By any legal standard, what they are alleging is complete crap. It's a cheap and weak defense, one which any competent legal counsel would blow up in a minute. Additionally, because a death was involved, this alone almost rules out the ultimate decisions being rendered by an arbitration board. (This is item #2). However, this does not dismiss out of hand the need for "hold-harmless" clauses in general, so don't confuse the two.

Food allergies are a complex area of the law because a number of legal principles are involved. Things such as 'reasonable care' and 'acceptance of risk' are at the top of the list. A person with severe food allergies has a 'responsibility' under the law to not knowingly put themselves in a situation which will cause them harm. Equally, service providers have a responsibility to take 'reasonable care' to prevent injury to patrons.

In this particular case, we don't have enough facts (unfortunately). Specifically, we don't know what allergies the guest stated to the staff she had, and we also don't know what allergy caused the reaction. So, for example, if she said she was allergic to peanuts, but died from a shellfish reaction instead, we don't know this, and this is key information. It is not enough to just say..."I have food allergies...and nothing more, because it is 'unreasonable' to expect an establishment which is not a medical facility to figure out which things a person is allergic to and which ones they aren't.

On the other hand, if she stated she was allergic to peanuts (example), and the staff knowingly served her a dish loaded with hidden peanuts (ground, oils, etc.), and this is what she succumbed to, then there could be liability on Disney.

Regardless, because there was a death involved, this fact almost automatically removes any proceedings out of an arbitration environment and into a criminal court.

I predict that Disney restaurants revenues will now plummet by exactly the number of patrons who have Disney+ accounts.

Inept act of self harm on Disney's part. But then that seems to be their business model regarding content, so why not in food & drinks as well, i guess?

a reply to: McGinty

This is an accurate assessment, in my opinion. Disney allowed their DEI philosophy in selecting legal representation to bite them in the ass by them throwing up a totally flimsy defense which will be sent into Lunar orbit by any remotely competent legal counsel for the plaintiff. This is like a smokescreen thrown up by Disney to test the water and see if the plaintiff is serious about engaging them. The problem is, the smokescreen only attracted more attention for all the wrong reasons. Now they have even more to worry about than before they used this sorry excuse of a defense, because people (Disney patrons) won't take the time, or have the legal background, to understand how weak this is. Instead, they will just be afraid (with their 15 minute attention spans) and take their business elsewhere.

Any business with a grain of common sense (and competent counsel) would have seen the countless ways such a maneuver would have blowback and taken a radically different public response.

But hey, you get what you pay for.