RikkiTikkaTagem said:

---

signing up for a free trial of Disney+….

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/14/business/disney-plus-wrongful-death-lawsuit/index.html

Quote:

---

Court documents show that the company is trying to get the $50,000 lawsuit dismissed because the plaintiff, Jeffrey Piccolo, signed up for a one-month trial of the streaming service Disney+ in 2019, which requires trial users to arbitrate all disputes with the company.

---

Amazing. Wonder what else I have signed away.

---

Lawyer talk. Haven't you heard them on TV, disrespecting insurance companies.
Essentially litigation is like the wild west.

I just read how this person died. They ate at a Disney restaurant with, apparently, some significant allergies.

Should every restaurant be forced to accept the liability of every patrons' condition like this? How could Disney possibly guarantee the internal health/safety of every single person that comes into their parks?

Quote:

---

In October 2023, Kanokporn Tangsuan, her husband Jeffrey Piccolo and Piccolo's mother dined at Raglan Road Irish Pub in Disney Springs, which is part of the Walt Disney World resort in Florida. They chose to eat at the restaurant, the lawsuit states, because they believed it would have proper safeguards against serving dairy and nuts to Tangsuan due to her allergies.

The waiter guaranteed the couple that certain foods could be made allergen-free, which the two confirmed "several more times," according to the lawsuit. She also ordered a vegan fritter, scallops, onion rings and a vegan shepherd's pie.

Although some of the food delivered lacked allergen-free flags, the waiter again assured them it was allergen free, but after dinner, Tangsuan, 42, went shopping in the Disney Springs area and began "suffering from a severe acute allergic reaction," according to the lawsuit.

---

This feels like a tangent to the OP, but also interesting.

aggiehawg said:

---

richardag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

annie88 said:

---

I hope this doesn't hold up.

Buying a streaming service and what happened at the park are not even related.

---

Plus it is a wrongful death case, personal injury, a tort. Courts do not look kindly on claimed waivers or agreeing to arbitration in advance of an injury. That would the definition of an adhesion contract.

---

IANAL
I took one course in corporate law during the summer @ UTD. One lesson regarded a company requiring people to sign terms and conditions and other documents. These documents can't waive the company's legal responsibilities. Not sure if this applies in this circumstance.
ETA
quote from the article

• The waiter guaranteed the couple that certain foods could be made allergen-free, which the two confirmed "several more times," according to the lawsuit. She alsoordered a vegan fritter, scallops, onion rings and a vegan shepherd's pie.
  
  Although some of the food delivered lacked allergen-free flags, the waiter again assured them it was allergen free, but after dinner, Tangsuan, 42, went shopping in the Disney Springs area and began "suffering from a severe acute allergic reaction," according to the lawsuit.

Disney is being a total ******* considering they are ultimately responsible for her death.

---

Placing a big sign reading Caveat Emptor on a restaurant might not be the best marketing campaign.

---

Thanks for the reply

Towns03 said:

---

I just read how this person died. They ate at a Disney restaurant with, apparently, some significant allergies.

Should every restaurant be forced to accept the liability of every patrons' condition like this? How could Disney possibly guarantee the internal health/safety of every single person that comes into their parks?

Quote:

---

In October 2023, Kanokporn Tangsuan, her husband Jeffrey Piccolo and Piccolo's mother dined at Raglan Road Irish Pub in Disney Springs, which is part of the Walt Disney World resort in Florida. They chose to eat at the restaurant, the lawsuit states, because they believed it would have proper safeguards against serving dairy and nuts to Tangsuan due to her allergies.

The waiter guaranteed the couple that certain foods could be made allergen-free, which the two confirmed "several more times," according to the lawsuit. She also ordered a vegan fritter, scallops, onion rings and a vegan shepherd's pie.

Although some of the food delivered lacked allergen-free flags, the waiter again assured them it was allergen free, but after dinner, Tangsuan, 42, went shopping in the Disney Springs area and began "suffering from a severe acute allergic reaction," according to the lawsuit.

---

This feels like a tangent to the OP, but also interesting.

---

It wasn't even a Disney owned or operated restaurant.

FTR: Other facts in this case will likely cause this case against Disney to be dismissed (franchise run restaurant leased from Disney, no day to day control of operations, etc.) but this atempt to force arbitration through terms of service for Disney+ or use of a website to purchase tickets is not grounds for dismissal. And it was a stupid argument to begin with.

Then again, after watching what the Disney lawyers did against DeSantis in Florida, their lawyers are pretty unimpressive, real dodo birds.

I imagine when your staff says they've taken necessary precautions like the waiter apparently did here that you take on some liability.

I'm also not sure that the restaurant being a separate entity from Disney completely shields them either for those bringing that up but would be curious what an attorney says on that.

TexasAggie73 said:

---

richardag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

annie88 said:

---

I hope this doesn't hold up.

Buying a streaming service and what happened at the park are not even related.

---

Plus it is a wrongful death case, personal injury, a tort. Courts do not look kindly on claimed waivers or agreeing to arbitration in advance of an injury. That would the definition of an adhesion contract.

---

IANAL
I took one course in corporate law during the summer @ UTD. One lesson regarded a company requiring people to sign terms and conditions and other documents. These documents can't waive the company's legal responsibilities. Not sure if this applies in this circumstance.
ETA
quote from the article

• The waiter guaranteed the couple that certain foods could be made allergen-free, which the two confirmed "several more times," according to the lawsuit. She alsoordered a vegan fritter, scallops, onion rings and a vegan shepherd's pie.
  
  Although some of the food delivered lacked allergen-free flags, the waiter again assured them it was allergen free, but after dinner, Tangsuan, 42, went shopping in the Disney Springs area and began "suffering from a severe acute allergic reaction," according to the lawsuit.

Disney is being a total ******* considering they are ultimately responsible for her death.

---

How is Disney responsible since they don't own or operate the business?

---

Good question
From the article

• In October 2023, Kanokporn Tangsuan, her husband Jeffrey Piccolo and Piccolo's mother dined at Raglan Road Irish Pub in Disney Springs, which is part of the Walt Disney World resort in Florida. They chose to eat at the restaurant, the lawsuit states, because they believed it would have proper safeguards against serving dairy and nuts to Tangsuan due to her allergies

It is on Disney property and Disney should have made the restaurant legally liable?

life threatening allergies? And they're taking the advice of a waiter?!

I'm thinking about how often the order I place comes back wrong... I could have died twice this month.

TexasAggie73 said:

---

Towns03 said:

---

I just read how this person died. They ate at a Disney restaurant with, apparently, some significant allergies.

Should every restaurant be forced to accept the liability of every patrons' condition like this? How could Disney possibly guarantee the internal health/safety of every single person that comes into their parks?

Quote:

---

In October 2023, Kanokporn Tangsuan, her husband Jeffrey Piccolo and Piccolo's mother dined at Raglan Road Irish Pub in Disney Springs, which is part of the Walt Disney World resort in Florida. They chose to eat at the restaurant, the lawsuit states, because they believed it would have proper safeguards against serving dairy and nuts to Tangsuan due to her allergies.

The waiter guaranteed the couple that certain foods could be made allergen-free, which the two confirmed "several more times," according to the lawsuit. She also ordered a vegan fritter, scallops, onion rings and a vegan shepherd's pie.

Although some of the food delivered lacked allergen-free flags, the waiter again assured them it was allergen free, but after dinner, Tangsuan, 42, went shopping in the Disney Springs area and began "suffering from a severe acute allergic reaction," according to the lawsuit.

---

This feels like a tangent to the OP, but also interesting.

---

It wasn't even a Disney owned or operated restaurant.

---

Yeah this just feels like the lawyer trying to get the bigger company involved to pay more seeing as it's not a Disney restaurant

Again, Florida changed their tort laws (except for medical malpractice) a couple of years back to a modified comparative negligence standard. Disney's potential culpability under these facts would appear to me to be much lower than the restaurant franchisee and possible plaintiff's contributory negligence.

Cue the South Park episode where the kids clicked the user agreement from Apple, and the next day a crew showed to do medical experiments on them. It was in the User Agreement!!

Towns03 said:

---

life threatening allergies? And they're taking the advice of a waiter?!

I'm thinking about how often the order I place comes back wrong... I could have died twice this month.

---

Did you read the article at all? They weren't just taking advice of the waiter. If the information in the article is accurate, the restaurant obviously has protocols in place for patrons with severe allergies and the protocols and/or communication broke down somewhere between waiter and cook staff.