Maybe not in this case. It seems like a pretty clear cut case of negligence.
Or avoid going to a Disney park.
From my understanding, the restaurant is independently owned and not operated by Disney itself (though it does sit on Disney property). And that it’s accessible without entering the park though also accessible from the park itself which is almost certainly the source of the majority of the restaurant’s revenue.
That sounds like a lot of room for a defense without resorting to terms in the EULA of a Disney+ subscription.
Much easier to comprehend, and food for thought, thanks.
I believe this is true. There are a handful of such restaurants and shops at Disney Springs.
It’s not even within (reasonable) walking distance from any of the parks. It’s in Disney Springs. which is effectively an outdoor mall/restaurant area a short drive away. There is no direct access from any of the parks, or even any of the resorts (hotels).
Yeah, this is like that McDs hot coffee lawsuit.
See, he ate at Raglan Road Irish Pub, not a disney owned restaurant. Disney only rents the land to Great Irish Pubs Florida, Inc.. So, his suit against Disney is bogus, so why not reply with a bogus defence?
Tangsuan was “highly allergic” to dairy and nuts, and they chose that particular restaurant in part because of its promises about accommodating patrons with food allergies, according to the lawsuit filed in a Florida circuit court.
The complaint details the family’s repeated conversations with their waiter about Tangsuan’s allergies. The family allegedly raised the issue upfront, inquired about the safety of specific menu items, had the server confirm with the chef that they could be made allergen-free and asked for confirmation “several more times” after that.
“When the waiter returned with [Tangsuan’s] food, some of the items did not have allergen free flags in them and [Tangsuan] and [Piccolo] once again questioned the waiter who, once again, guaranteed the food being delivered to [Tangsuan] was allergen free,” the lawsuit reads.
The three of them ate and then went their separate ways: Piccolo brought the leftovers to their room, while his wife and mother headed for the stores. After about 45 minutes, Tangsuan “began having severe difficulty breathing and collapsed to the floor.”
This has nothing to do with Disney at all. They are just dragging Disney in for the publicity, hoping to get a settlement. And of course, it might not have been that food that caused the reaction.
But this is not Disney, that is the point.
In that case McDonalds was really at fault and she was severely injured. It was not a publicity stunt (not that I’m saying this case is one). .
The Publicity stunt was McDs paying off bloggers, writers, etc to show how stupid and crazy the lawsuit really was. which of course -it wasnt. So if you read about the lawsuit, you might say “how silly that lawsuit was!” when in actuality, if you dug deeper- yep, it was 100% totally McDs fault.
Same here. he has no business suing Disney in the first place. Disney is just trying to get their name off the suit.
Oh, I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that the hot coffee case was baseless and done to get money from them. Sorry.
They ate at a Disney restaurant, and therefore Disney is responsible. The fact that Disney puts layers of misdirection between the restaurant and themself is irrelevant: It’s still a Disney restaurant, that Disney has responsibility for. Disney themselves admit this, through this arbitration argument.
And the arbitration argument is also irrelevant, even with the federal law stating that all arbitration agreements are binding, because there was no arbitration agreement here. An agreement, by definition, requires both parties to agree, and this guy didn’t.
More importantly, this guys wife didn’t.
But it is NOT a Disney restaurant. Disney is merely the landlord.
Then why has Disney moved to have the case taken out of court and heard by Disney’s arbitrator?
IANAL but my guess is that way they get a hearing, and will make a petition to be taken off.
And who owns Great Irish Pubs Florida, Inc.?
Co-owned by Dublin businessmen Paul Nolan and John Cooke .
According to the lawsuit, Disney is more involved than just being the landlord.
From the filing:
Upon information and belief, DISNEY had control over the menu of food offered, the hiring and/or training of the wait staff, and the policies and procedures as it pertains to food allergies at DISNEY SPRINGS restaurants, such as RAGLAN ROAD.
Upon information and belief, DISNEY and/or RAGLAN ROAD were responsible for the serving of food containing allergens to KANOKPORN TANGSUAN at RAGLAN ROAD.
DISNEY advertises and represents to the public that food allergies and/or the accommodation of persons with food allergies is a top priority at its parks and resorts, including DISNEY SPRINGS and that patrons/guests may consult with a chef or special diets trained Cast Member before placing an order, and at all times material, Plaintiff relied upon these representations in selecting DISNEY SPRINGS/RAGLAN ROAD for dinner.
DISNEY publicly promotes DISNEY SPRINGS as part of WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC., and at all times material, Plaintiff relied upon these representations in selecting DISNEY SPRINGS/RAGLAN ROAD for dinner.
Those are allegations - which doesn’t mean they can’t be true. Both Disney and Great Irish Pubs Florida, Inc doing business as Raglan Road Irish Pub are named in the lawsuit. If the plaintiffs don’t name Disney now, they may run into trouble later on if the restaurant points a finger at Disney and the jury finds the restaurant is not liable (because Disney is). But lawsuits are basically a list of allegations, and in the particular one, no details are given about what information gave rise to the belief that.
Upon information and belief, DISNEY had control and/or right of control over the menu of food offered, the hiring and/or training of the wait staff, and the policies and procedures as it pertains to food allergies at DISNEY SPRINGS restaurants, such as RAGLAN ROAD.
and that the people working in the restaurant are actually Disney employees. The lawsuit claims that
DISNEY failed to educate, train, and/or instruct its employees,
waiters, waitresses, chefs, managers, workers, and/or cast-members to make sure food, indicated as allergen free on the menu and/or food requested to be made allergen free, was in fact free of allergens;
I’m not going to say it couldn’t happen that a landlord will control the hiring/training menu , etc. But that doesn’t usually happen when a restaurant ( or store) rents space in a mall ( which is essentially what Disney Springs is). It normally happens when a franchisor ( say McDonald’s) owns the space where there is a franchise operated by someone else. For example, I might operate a McDonald franchise in a building owned by the real estate subsidiary of McDonald’s and in that case , the landlord and the entity that controls how I run my business are part of the same corporation. But that doesn’t apply if I open an independent restaurant in a mall - maybe the mall will control my opening hours , but not the menu or training or hiring.
Disney probably shouldn’t have used the Disney + agreement to arbitrate to try to get this lawsuit dismissed and it may end up backfiring on them - but it’s also possible that Disney wouldn’t have tried this defense if the incident had occurred in a Disney owned and operated restaurant.
Of course it’s just allegations, but it’s likely they will make a good faith effort to back up those allegations. Judges don’t take too kindly to lawsuits by attorneys who just make stuff up. I mean, just 5 minutes of Googling seems to show that Disney is more than just a landlord at Disney Springs.
Maybe that’s because this filing isn’t the place to start arguing their case.
They don’t - but some do anyway.
I must have Googled the wrong search terms. because I didn’t see anything suggesting that Disney was more than a landlord to this particular restaurant. Does Disney own and operate some of the restaurants at Disney Springs? Absolutely , but I found nothing to suggest that they are anything other than a landlord to this one.
It’s not, but it’s not uncommon for allegations to have more detail than these. For example, the Panera lemonade lawsuit gave some detail about why the customer believed it was ordinary lemonade. It was with the non-caffeinated drinks, it wasn’t advertised as an energy drink and so on. This lawsuit doesn’t even give a tiny amount of detail abut why they believe that Disney is “more than just a landlord.” Not even a claim that employees wore Disney nametags. Maybe they are more than a landlord, but the allegations in the lawsuit are no indication of that, not any more that Disney’s denials mean they aren’t more than a landlord.