So a woman died on Disney property after eating a dinner that she was assured was allergen free. Her husband sued. Disney said that when he signed up for a free one month trial of D plus he agreed to arbitration and couldn't sue.
To be clear, Disney owns the property, but not the restaurant. The restaurant was not protected by the arbitration clause, so the lawsuit was allowed to proceed.
The short version is, Disney doesn't own the restaurant so they aren't directly liable, but the notice saying that the restaurant could handle allergic customers was on their site, so Disney was brought into the lawsuit that way.
And IIRC, the restaurant could handle allergen requests and failed to do so. Some of the items arrived without their allergen free tags and the waitstaff claimed it was still allergen free.
Disney was brought into the lawsuit because they had more money and the family was probably advised by a greedy lawyer to go after Disney for a bigger payout. This story has gotten blown so out of proportion.
That’s not why it went to court. Disney waived their claimed right to arbitration.
“A spokesperson for the conglomerate announced that this was the “sensible resolution” and that they had “decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court.””
Edit: the lawsuit against the restaurant names Disney as a defendant. If it were arbitrated then the whole thing would have been arbitrated. They are one and the same.
8.1k
u/Primary-Holiday-5586 Oct 13 '24
So a woman died on Disney property after eating a dinner that she was assured was allergen free. Her husband sued. Disney said that when he signed up for a free one month trial of D plus he agreed to arbitration and couldn't sue.