Disney claims agreeing to Disney+ terms waives man's right to sue over wife's death Walt Disney Parks and Resorts wants a wrongful death lawsuit filed against it and one of its tenants, an Irish pub, to be booted from court into arbitration. The Mickey Mouse titan contends the widower who brought the case waived his right to a court trial when he clicked "Agree" to the Terms of Service of a month-long Disney …
The case isn't actually that great. Disney do not manage the Raglan Road Irish Pub and therefore are not ultimately responsible for controlling allergens there. Searcy-Denny are making a pretty dubious case against Disney (because that's where the money is) based on Raglan Road Irish Pub advertising on Disney's website that they were allergen safe.
So the establishment is leased from Disney, and advertises on the Disney website, and is on Disney property?
And the Disney website made assertions about the capabilities of the establishment to feed, rather than poison, people.
I'd say it sounds very like they'd be jointly liable - and I suspect Disney's lawyers agree, else they'd try to throw it out as "sue Raglan, not us"
The menu change says it all "cast member" meaning Disney is dictating what happens in all of the business units, owned or not by Disney, on Disney property. Disney is guilty. Pay up. In total transparency, I've done business with these guys and they are total bottom feeders.
Well there is probably not a corporate manslaughter case against Disney, but the operator of a restaurant that incorrectly said there were not traces of an allergen in food, when there were and that causing death probably does have a criminal negligence charge of some kind to answer. That case however would be against who ever operates the restaurant day to day trains the staff sets policy for cleaning teh kitchen... Given the attempt to get the case to arbitration and claims Disney should not be named in the case as the website is the only place they make assurances about food safety that is pointedly not Disney themselves. I guess it makes sense an animation firm doesn't cook the food at its mall outside of its park and has a partner do it. However given the massive disney logos everywhere the cast member licensed to dress as Disney characters.. Anything other than admission of a mistake and bending over backwards to ensure compensation is paid when someone dies of negligence is just asking for reputational damage. The only reason to defend such a case is to avoid setting president of liability. Asking lawyers to minimize the cost of such a thing or taking their advice to do so is an exercise in foot shooting.
If they're solely relying on the T&Cs Disney would appear to be accepting that they're in the loop.
It may, of course, be that the report is incomplete and the lawyers are arguing that (a) it's the site tenant who's solely responsible and (b) if we, Disney, are then he agreed to our T&Cs.
While arguing that it's the company running the restaurant that's solely responsible might be reasonable, their actual arguments seem to be that Piccolo is suing everyone possible (a 'shotgun pleading') and their arbitration should take place first, and that clicking on accepting their terms and conditions means that Piccolo is contractually bound to go to arbitration for any dispute against Disney. Most of Disney's lawyers argument is about the latter. You can see the text at the bottom of the article here: longisland.news12.com/disney-asks-court-to-dismiss-wrongful-death-lawsuit-of-long-island-doctor
"Shotgun pleadings" are absolutely the right thing to do, though. Sue Disney, they claim "not us guv, you need to sue the restaurant". Sue the restaurant, they claim "not us guv, you need to sue Disney". By suing both, you put the onus on the court to decide which party is liable, or if there is shared liability between them.
As to the merits of forcing arbitration, I'll leave that to the lawyers to argue about, but using a Disney+ subscription to avoid a court battle for something unrelated to it seem sleazy.
"As to the merits of forcing arbitration, I'll leave that to the lawyers to argue about, but using a Disney+ subscription to avoid a court battle for something unrelated to it seem sleazy."
I believe that the use of arbitration should only be allowed when both parties agree at the time of a dispute. It should not be an up-holdable term in any contract or Terms&Conditions. Arbitration can be a quicker and cheaper option to settle a dispute, but it can often be a way for companies to stifle being held responsible for their actions.
That Disney is stretching really far to claim that the terms somebody may have affirmatively agreed to for an entirely different product or service applies is something of an admission that they are culpable. If Disney is merely the entity leasing the premises to the restaurant and the marketing Disney does is rather generic and done to attract customers to the marketplace as a whole, to me, that would show the two companies are at an arm's length. If Disney meddles in the operations of the restaurant, things can change and it would not surprise me if that's what's happening in this case.
If there isn't one it would be up to the court to decide. It would very likely be presented with evidence on the matter by expert witnesses. Possibly the judge might make a ruling or at least offer guidance to the jury. Alternatively the jury would be asked to decide if, by allergen-free, a reasonable person might assume that they would not suffer a potentially lethal allergic reaction on eating the comestible in question.
That's the way criminal law establishes such things. It enables the law to keep up with developments which may not have been known or taken as worthy of consideration when the relevant statutes were drawn up, at least in English law and in those jurisdictions that are derived from it.
If there isn't one it would be up to the court to decide. It would very likely be presented with evidence on the matter by expert witnesses. Possibly the judge might make a ruling or at least offer guidance to the jury. Alternatively the jury would be asked to decide if, by allergen-free, a reasonable person might assume that they would not suffer a potentially lethal allergic reaction on eating the comestible in question.
So I've been pondering this, especially on the back of some other cases like this one-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gvkvlp208o
Hannah Jacobs had a severe dairy allergy and died within hours of sipping the drink bought by her mother in February 2023 - despite making staff aware of her daughter's allergies.
If someone is hypersensitive to an allergen, in this case dairy, can you reasonably claim to be allergen-free in a place like a coffee shop? In this case it was dairy, so dairy products would have been common. There was perhaps some contributory negligence where neither the kid nor their parent had an epi-pen.. and the price & availability of those also seems to be an issue. It's also where I wonder if litigation will have a chilling effect. Do you have any allergies? Yes? Sorry, we cannot serve you because it's just too risky. Especially as the allergen might be introduced somewhere up the supply chain and the retailer may be blissfully aware that it might be contaminated.
Which is also where it can't be any fun living with a severe allergy. Treat every meal as if it's your last, because it might be. I'm lucky that I don't have any allergies (that I know of) other than the gene that makes corriander taste nasty. So have some experience eating out and asking if they can hold the corriander and being asked if I'm allergic to it. Which I'm not really, but usually it's easier to just say 'yes' than explain it's a genetic thing that apparently means I'm better able to detect decomp products.
So curious what the best solution will be. The Bbc article talks about increasing allergy training and awareness. Part of this should also be stressing the importance of carrying an epi-pen. Or perhaps those should be made more widely available, but that goes back to their price and market dominance.
Mortal allergies do seem to place any vendor in an impossible situation where they are almost duty bound to apply the precautionary principle: "We cannot guarantee the absence of allergens in our foodstuffs".
For people with such allergies they cannot realistically expect to heap all the responsibility for their safety on a food vendor who is supplying to the general public in street retail environment. The best they can realistically expect is 'reasonable precautions', which certainly does not imply any kind of 'guarantee' of safety.
Some things in life are just not realistically enforceable by legislation, or by expectation, and we have to find ways of living with that reality that do not end up holding others hostage to impossible demands.
Some things in life are just not realistically enforceable by legislation, or by expectation, and we have to find ways of living with that reality that do not end up holding others hostage to impossible demands.
Yup. Fortunately deaths from allergic reactions are rare, but allergies do seem to be increasing. So I think it's a case of figuring out why this is*, and what the best response should be. Awareness helps, ie recognising the signs of anaphalaxis and that it's a medical emergency. But there's not a lot people can do other than call an ambulance, but that may be too slow. On a campus like a Disney park, they have their own medical services, so could potentially respond faster. But I guess it's also a case of having things like epi-pens available, and knowing how to use them.
In the UK case, people tried going to a pharmacy for help, but apparently a shortage of epi-pens meant they couldn't. So that could be a possible solution, ie fix supply chain and cost, make it part of food safety/first aid training. Downside is restaurants are open when pharmacies might not be, so whether it's something that could become part of the AED rollout. Dial 999, get told the nearest location of an epi-pen stash. But one of the sad things about that case was the kid & their parent knew what was happening, but didn't have the pen they were supposed to be carrying.
*This hypothesis intrigues me-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene_hypothesis
As a kid, I was always out playing and seem to have a pretty good immune system. But I'm also part of a trial investigating metabolic syndrome. Part of that was getting an allergy test, which was kinda fun. A grid drawn on my back and various substances poked into me. Tried to get the nurse to let me play battleships with the person in the next bed, but they were amused, but wouldn't join in.
For people with such allergies they cannot realistically expect to heap all the responsibility for their safety on a food vendor who is supplying to the general public in street retail environment.
[....]
The best they can realistically expect is 'reasonable precautions', which certainly does not imply any kind of 'guarantee' of safety.
If this particular restaurant advertised "allergen free" food, then I would have thought the customer was entitled to take this at face value, especially when reassured by staff that this was the case. If the actual offering was "mostly allergen free, but possibly not" then they should have used those exact words in the advertisement.
I do agree on the chilling effect though, i.e. restaurants and food outlets either refusing to serve or give any meaningful information for consumers to make a choice.
Many years ago, I flew on a US airline. They handed out complementary packets of peanuts. On the outside of the packet it said "Warning: may contain nuts". Apparently they weren't prepared to make a definitive statement even in this simple case.
The replies here to the OP are very thoughtful but, sadly, show the European sources of the commenters involved, for in reality it is almost *impossible* to get corporate manslaughter charges in the United States regardless of the "Corporations are people too" propaganda.
Indeed, even Wiki acknowledges that there is no such law or even legal prescient for it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_manslaughter
Best you can hope for in the U.S. is negligence but even then it will be against the corporate entity unless you sue a named individual directly; no individual will be made liable for injury or death if a corporation is found guilty. This is intentional: politicians refuse to pass laws that make said individuals accountable and hold the line on passing laws that allow the finding of negligence under reasonable proof.
Those lawyers, twelve of them so far, have refused to take my case by only listening to me over the phone.
Their reasoning? The fifth lawyer admitted it to me openly: "I'm going to be honest with you. I'm not taking the case because it won't make me enough money. And I doubt you'll find any lawyer who will take the case because of the same reasoning."
The laws in my state limit damage claims and therefore lawyers only take cases that make them big money. Everyone else can ROT even when there is a solid case (mine is, that same lawyer believed it to be so).
So lawyers? I'd do more than let them starve if I had any say about it...
"Disney hasn't broken the law. The people running the Raglan Road Irish Pub have."
Then Disney's very easy argument would be that they have nothing to do with the restaurant outside of leasing them the property. Two hours of an attorney's time in court? There isn't anything to prep at that point unless the judge decides that being the landlord (US definition) IS sufficient for the case to continue with Disney as defendants. At that point the lawyers could do the research to find citations and file a motion to severed from the suit.
Many of those sorts of disclaimers and waivers are designed to convince a potential plaintiff that they can't sue. "Oh, damn, I signed that thing; I guess I can't sue 'em."
Wherher they actually can sue or not depends various factors (disclaimers: IANAL; YMMV; actual results can vary based on physical location and applicable legal jurisdictions; offer subject to additional terms and conditions; offer may not be combined with other coupons or discounts; ...).
The lawyers will be patting themselves on the back for covering their corporate paymasters in the small print. But they may have done it at the expense of Disney's reputation amongst the general public.
Given that Disney have already annoyed the Republican half of America in recent spats, this probably wasn't the best choice for a sequel.
I think i"m confused. He bought Epcot tickets online, but never used them, and they were refunded. He also accepted a one month free trial of Disney+ in 2019. Somehow, one of these events contained conditions that preclude his attempt to sue Disney in court over harm that occurred in 2023? I realize this is a lawsuit, and asking about "sense" is missing the point, but still...
OK, so if I ever take a free trial of any online product, I will forgo any opportunity to sue the providing company, no matter what the situation, until the heat death of the universe, if they remembered to include this condition in their Terms and Conditions? Wow... I never cease to be amazed at the ways lawyers manage to slip little "gotchas" into those boring blocks of fine print.
"(I wonder if they do employ any drivers? )"
I believe they do in the biggest markets where they have the volume and can work them into the ground. In smaller markets, they outsource. FedEx does the same thing with Ground service. For the most part anything going FedEx Ground will, at the very least, be delivered by a contracted company that runs a bunch of gig drivers.
Remember all those 'licence agreements' you 'accepted' when you first installed, then updated, added to, configured and patched all that lovely software on your computers?
Did anyone actually read all of it? (No, me neither.)
"Dear E M,
In 1987 you agreed to the terms and conditions of use of our software under licence for a trial period of 1 (one) weeks which, in clause 87.3, paragraph MCLXVII, subsection c, part iii item 27, states that you gifted us your immortal soul, in perpetuity, for the purposes of our selling to his eminence, Satan, Lord of Darkness for whatever we desired. The fact that you did not sign the contract on vellum in your own blood is immaterial, as electronic contracts are lawful and binding on all parties. Your claims that you failed to read and understand the entire contract's 666 pages is also irrelevant as your agreed to it.
We therefore cannot accept your claim that you should be allowed any compensation or relief from the tortures you have, are or will suffer in hell.
Hoping you are well,
Legal team at Diabolical inc."
Reckon I might just have a go at reading some of these agreements after all.
""Dear E M,
In 1987 you agreed to the terms and conditions of use
Your wording is off. The letter should have begun "Thank you very much for reaching out to us, your opinions about our product/services is very important to us and we place great value on our reputation".
This post has been deleted by its author
They should have known including the thing about Disney+ was not only unnecessary, but would generate headlines all over about how ridiculous Disney's position was. If it was just "he agreed to this clause when he bought tickets to WDW so he can't sue over her death at a pub located in WDW" then it would be just another corporate lawsuit over the legality of various legal waivers, agreements to arbitration, etc. that are included in the small print for just about anything these days.
It would barely attract notice in the legal world, let alone the world at large. Adding that claim about Disney+ has generated headlines that make it sound like they are saying that JUST that trial period of Disney+ renders one unable to ever sue Disney over anything for the rest of their lives, which of course is going to generate massive outrage. Its almost as if the lawyers went out of their way to engender the worst possible negative press!
But hey, if this is what it takes to get the public interested in pushing lawmakers to pass a law banning such clauses in the small print of every purchase you make these days, I'm here for it!
Not a lawyer, but even the tickets to WDW seems tenuous to me. The death didn't happen on the trip to WDW, but days before. I think the agreement to arbitration would need to be somewhat proximate to the relationship that evolved from the contract containing the arbitration clause. And $50K for a potential negligent manslaughter seems like a paltry sum that Disney should have jumped on.
Taking positions like this reinforces negative impressions such as Mousewitz and Duckau.
"...renders one unable to ever sue Disney over anything for the rest of their lives."
This isn't what is happening. If an actual Disney run restaurant had killed someone through negligence on allergens, they could be sued without question. Searcy Denney have included Disney in the lawsuit because Disney has more money but all they are accused of is advertising the pub as 'allergen safe' on their website. Disney's think this is covered by the T's & C's that require arbitration. The court will decide if this is correct or not.
@SundogUK "This isn't what is happening. If an actual Disney run restaurant had killed someone through negligence on allergens, they could be sued without question."
No it's not happening, at the moment it's only Disney's lawyers arguing that should be the case. If the court decide those T's & C's that require arbitration do apply then it goes from argument to happened. It is claimed someone has been killed through negligence on allergens and WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC share responsibility with GREAT IRISH PUBS FLORIDA, INC.
Now it's either the courts responsibility to judge WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S starting with whether there is a case to answer (someone has been killed through negligence on allergens) for WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS or it's the responsibility of arbitration because WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS are covered by those T's & C's for (someone has been killed through negligence on allergens)
Now if WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS are covered by those T's & C's it's for life because the Disney Terms of Use contains a survival clause. Meaning canceling your Disney+ subscription does not terminate Disney Terms of Use.
BTW someone above linked this and it contains both WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS motion and the reply from the plaintives. https://forums.theregister.com/forum/1/2024/08/15/disney_plus_death_lawsuit_waive/?post_received=4913943#c_4913943
@DS999 You are right ""Disney's lawyers are stupid They should have known including the thing about Disney+" would generate negative press and massive outrage.
But Disney+ was necessary, because the login process Piccolo followed in 2023 to buy those tickets to Epcot only asked him to consent to My Disney Experience Terms and Conditions. He was not asked to consent the Disney Terms of Use (agreements to arbitration clause) because he was flagged as giving consent when he registered his Disney+ account in 2019.
Disney's lawyers stretch giving consent in 2023, referencing a line in My Disney Experience Terms and Conditions "The Terms and Conditions “apply in addition to, and not in lieu of, the Disney Terms of Use" and expecting Piccolo would review, Disney Terms of Use, so by accepting My Disney Experience Terms and Conditions Piccolo accepts Disney Terms of Use.
Whether Piccolo actually reviewed the Disney Terms of Use is unimportant, continuing to use the service to purchase tickets Disney's lawyers argue is consent.
The fact that some comments are negative against Disney shows, that the American media is not brainwashing people as effectively as the media in Russia brainwashes enough Russians to believe in Putin.
Good too see America media supporting and constantly giving a platform and praising corporate leadership they obviously always think of the children.
Every single media outlet on the right wing has been hating on Disney for the last few years.
Previously people were mostly very pro Disney (other than some small outrage here and there when they managed to push through another copyright extension) so if anything it shows that the right wing media is every bit as effective as Putin's in brainwashing people, as it sure changed a lot of opinions on the right about Disney literally overnight.
Disney actually owning one of the four major TV networks, and the largest sports network, puts them in charge of a lot of the "media", but mostly people's good impressions were because they like their parks, their kids like the shows/movies, and a lot of those parents have fond childhood memories themselves when they were attending the parks and watching the shows.
Heck, I'm Gen X and I remember going to both Disneyland and Disneyworld when I was a kid, though it seems forming a real attachment to Disney as a child was more of a girl thing. Wanting to be a "princess" and all that. I was too old for VHS tapes of Disney movies being played incessantly, or for a "Disney Channel" on cable, so I was only getting occasional hits of Disney while the millennials were mainlining it from around the time of their first words until high school!
Previously people were mostly very pro Disney
Yeah, nobody has ever referred to Disney as "The Evil Empire," have they? No, wait, I'm pretty sure I've heard them called that at least as far back as the 1990s, when discussions like these were being had on Usenet, and the most up-to-date web browser was X-Mosaic.
"Every single media outlet on the right wing has been hating on Disney for the last few years."
With no good reason. The sort of sentimental fantasy that Disney has been purveying for decades isn't so far from fantasy world view that trump constantly appeals to.
This post has been deleted by its author
That seems the only.reasonable approach to this.
I don't subscribe, nor ever have, so have never been confronted with the TOS, but that seems like way too much control over unassociated items.
It echo's the US v Microsoft, where they were trying to break the company into an OS, and an internet company, or something close to that.
Having a clause in a streaming service about not being able to sue a physical location is insane. Unless there are going to be audio warnings before ever episode or movie saying "please keep hand and arms inside the vehicle and in a seated position for the duration of the experience."
---
On that note. What if one of their shows causes an epilepsy trigger. Do you sue Disneyland resorts for having provided an unsafe recreation experience? Their attraction and product (henceforth to be called "the experience") caused injury to on of their users.
Yes I known that is twisted and would not stand up, but is it open to such things now?
What if one was to use a VPN so as to appear in a Disneyland resort at the time of viewing content on Disney+ and as a result suffer some injury or even death... That surely would mean it was all their fault.
This is very messy to include a physical location clause in a video streaming service.
It's partly an honor -- they're not mere "employees" or "associates" or "personnel" because they have an active role: like a movie or show, your cast members are actors. As part of the job, they must act like it is the Most Magical Place on Earth, lest any guest's expectations go sour. Dehumanizing, no, but certainly humiliating at times*.
Using that term "cast members" for employees who aren't Disney's -- employed by the pub leasing the space -- does further the illusion that Disney has some control/liability, and therefore responsibility, in situations just like the case at hand (but as someone else said, not necessarily culpability/blame).
* The most humiliating part is that every cast member has to act the role of janitor/cleaner (at times) because there are no dedicated janitorial/cleaning roles in Disney parks. Not sure about the resorts and cruise ships, because I expect those still have "housekeeping".
I always thought the most humillating part was the infamous communal underwear
It seems to me that $50K would be a very small sum for death through negligence, so maybe they are worried that at some point it’d turn into a $500K or even $5M claim. On the other hand, if the husband‘s lawyer thought the claim was unlikely to succeed, maybe they claimed such a small amount with the hope that Disney would just quickly pay up to get rid of the case.
In any case, the effect of „pour (dé)encorager les autres“ will be factored in too.
On the other hand, if the husband‘s lawyer thought the claim was unlikely to succeed, maybe they claimed such a small amount with the hope that Disney would just quickly pay up to get rid of the case.
I think $50k is a procedural thing, so the damages/claim must be at least $50k to request a jury trial.
This is the best reason... to justify pirating anything related to disney... even if you don't want it... pirate the fuck out of.
Don't give them a penny of your money.
This guy signed up to a 'trial' of D+... he's not a current subscriber and cancelling the subscription means the terms no longer apply anyway.
At least this couldn't happen in the UK... we do at least have the unfair terms and conditions in consumer contracts... but even with that, the young girl who was killed by incompetent costa staff have got away with a negligent manslaughter because they couldn't be bothered to listen and understand when told by the parent she had a dairy allergy and the drink needed to be made with soy milk and the jugs needed to be properly washed first.
If you've ever been in a costa... a cursory wipe with a dirty rag is about as much as you'll get... if you have any allergens... never order anything from them... In fact, never order anything from any chains at all... go to a local cafe instead.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
