After massive public outcry, Disney stops attempt to kill lawsuit after killing restaurant guest

[L0ki]

@orenwolf

If a case like this for “only” a landlord results in liability transferred to disney, I seriously worry that those without the deep pockets of disney are going to outright require that their tenants not state that they are allergen-friendly to avoid this happening to them.

If it helps, even the complaint does not assert liability on the basis of being “the landlord”.

The claim is brought on a whole bunch of other grounds - which may well be found to be entirely unsupported (that’s after all the whole point of trials) - but not on the basis “Disney is the landlord, therefore they are liable for their tenant’s actions or negligence”.

Disney is asserting that all the grounds in the claim don’t apply and that Disney’s only relationship with the restaurant is that of landlord and tenant.

As far as I can see all parties agree that if that is true, then Disney is not liable.

[FGD135]

Something, something, fucking 35 fucking times…
[generic supportive emoji]

[danimagoo]

@orenwolf

but I think that’s terrible for the long-term chilling effects likely to happen in this case.

Hard disagree. There’s absolutely nothing new or precedent setting about this case. Anywho, I’ve made my point, multiple times, so I’m out.

[MagicFox]

I haven’t had time to read through all the additional comments, so my apologies if this was already brought up…

As you note, Disney has more liability here than that of simply a landlord. Information about restaurants in their theme park / mall area make the assertion that allergen food can be prepared at the restaurants.

This implies two things:

1. One conditional term to renting a location in Disney’s space, the restaurant has to agree to be able to make allergen free food.
2. Disney takes commercially reasonable steps to ensure lease holders abide by the terms of their lease, including verifying that food can be made allergen free.

The fact that Disney added a disclaimer to the website that they cannot guarantee food is allergen free after the suit implies that these two conditions exist. They may not, but I would be surprised if Disney were laissez-faire about the restaurants in their themed spaces. (Disney Hooters, anyone?)

Could the plaintiffs win on these points? It depends. Would a reasonable person, booking a vacation through Disney, checking meal options on a Disney website, and relying on statements made on said website, assume allergen free food were available and would be prepared appropriately? Would a reasonable person be able to assume Disney took appropriate steps to ensure allergen free foods were available and prepared properly, even if the restaurant wasn’t owned and operated by Disney, but operating on leased space from Disney which Disney claimed restaurants in said space could prepare allergen free food? Maybe? Depends on the Judge/jury.

But Disney has more liability than just a landlord, which is why they didn’t file motion to be removed from the lawsuit, and tried to arbitrate using a Disney+ arbitration clause. And got clobbered for it, because it is an unexpectedly slimy thing for the “happiest place on earth” to do.

[danimagoo]

@MagicFox

The fact that Disney added a disclaimer to the website that they cannot guarantee food is allergen free after the suit implies that these two conditions exist.

True, although if I remember my torts class correctly, the fact that they later took corrective action can’t be used as evidence of their earlier negligence. The law wants to encourage companies to take such corrective action without worrying that it will be taken as an admission of liability.

[orenwolf]

And worse, there absolutely is president for this.

Disney spends an absolutely insane amount of money taking care of their property (which is, unbelievably, twice the size of Manhattan!) - this includes landscaping, pest management, etc etc.

For the first 40 years of WDW, you could swim in the natural lakes and the artificially-created seven seas lagoon surrounding the various hotels at Disney.

Tragically, in 2016, despite Disney’s best efforts, in 2016 a two year old was killed when a gator grabbed him outside of one of the parks.

Disney made a huge point of how hard they work to prevent that sort of thing afterwards, and they certainly have the money and resources to make swimming on property safer, but Disney legal was having none of that - after the lawsuit, Disney fenced in every single natural swimming area on property. Every single beach or watering hole became off-limits, and now you can only swim in their fenced-in pools or water parks.

Disney lawyers are allergic to legal liability in these sorts of cases, regardless of how the parks & experiences teams feel about it.

Disney parks have worked really hard to create inclusive spaces and policies for their parks: they were one of the first major parks to create “quiet areas” so that neurodivergent guests or their children could get some quiet time. They have one of the most comprehensive disability access services anywhere for theme parks, and, up till now, were one of the few companies dedicated to providing alternative maps for allergy, religious, or ethical reasons throughout their parks (even going so far recently as creating an entire allergy-free trick-or-treating experience for their Halloween parties so kids don’t feel left out!)

Sadly, I expect that this lawsuit is going to end the allergy-friendly aspect of this for Disney, and make life that much shittier for the thousands of families that rely on Disney to provide allergy-friendly meals, especially given how Disney legal has responded to this sort of issue in the past.

[MagicFox]

@danimagoo

that they later took corrective action can’t be used as evidence of their earlier negligence.

True. But if I were the plaintiffs’ lawyer, I’d be using that as a starting point for requesting copies of leases and other commercial agreements, as well as looking into what level of involvement, interaction, or control Disney staff had with the various tenants. (I’d do this anyway, but this would be like catnip.)

@orenwolf I don’t know if Disney will go to the extreme of dropping allergen-free meal options. Most likely they will make sure there are signs everywhere saying they can’t guarantee allergen free options are 100% allergen free. That sucks, but I think it is par for the course for people with allergies. (It’s what my sister has to deal with, unfortunately. Typically her options have been safe.) Thanks to Disney allergen-free options are fairly common in most restaurant chains.

I remember the incident with the alligator. I also remember thinking at the time that, while it was a horrible tragedy, it was more surprising that someone hadn’t drowned before then. I’d be more worried about that than a gator attack.