So if you sign up for Disney + and your wife dies due to an allergy at a Disney theme park Disney are immune from litigation?

Good reason among many, not to use either.

Goonie said:

Disney seeks to dismiss wrongful death lawsuit over widower’s Disney+ free trial

Man says wife died of allergic reaction at Disney World but company claims streamer’s terms block him from filing suit

www.theguardian.com

Seriously Disney are claiming the terms and conditions to signing up to Disney+ carry over to their theme parks.

If you sign up to Disney+ remember Disney claim that you have signed away your right to sue if anything goes wrong not just to yourself but your wife and children at their theme parks.

Click to expand...

Am I gonna start wishing that Desantis had won his fight?

Ugh... been seeing this all over the place today.

As with other things there is more to this argument than a streaming service login T&C affecting some seemingly non-related event. You have to read the actual argument that Disney is making here and it really isn't absurd. It's still not great because forced arbitration isn't great, and that's a whole other argument in itself, but this fixation on the fact that it's a streaming account is intentionally mis-framing what's actually being argued.

The account used for the streaming service and the account used to purchase tickets in this case are the same. It's all connected with the Disney "My Disney Experience" profile. It's all together. Just because it was initially setup through a playstation for streaming is kind of irrelevant because they used the same account to purchase their Disney tickets 4 years later. The T&C still applies. Again, the actual contents of the T&C can be argued, but that they can be applied in this case isn't really far-fetched. Aside from the fact that the incident happened in a non-Disney owned restaurant. Disney was just the landlord here, but again that's a different argument.

I'm not defending Disney here and I don't necessarily think they shouldn't have some responsibility, but the argument they're making, as distasteful as it seems, isn't absurd.

Goonie said:

Disney claim that you have signed away your right to sue if anything goes wrong

Click to expand...

I went to the dermatologist and had to sign five forms. When I said I would not sign one of them, they told me that I could not see the doctor if I did not sign all of their legal forms. They do plastic surgery and that can be a real disaster sometimes.

Tangsuan had a severe allergy to dairy and nuts. She knew this. And should have been more careful. And prepared her own food. Period! Also ,she should have had an EpiPen. She's responsible for her own death.

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN said:

Tangsuan had a severe allergy to dairy and nuts. She knew this. And should have been more careful. And prepared her own food. Period! Also ,she should have had an EpiPen. She's responsible for her own death.

Click to expand...

She was quite careful. They confirmed with the server multiple times that the food didn’t contain allergens. When it was served to their table without the appropriate allergy-friendly indicators, they asked again and were reassured again. The dish wasn’t merely contaminated with allergens, it was loaded with them. She did carry an Epipen. There’s not much you can do when somebody just lies to you about what’s in your food.

iluvatar5150 said:

The dish wasn’t merely contaminated with allergens, it was loaded with them.

Click to expand...

Where are you getting that information? I haven't seen that claim. Your article didn't mention it.

I also note that your article does not repeat the claim that the autopsy showed she had "elevated levels of dairy and nut in her system" which is a really weird way to phrase an autopsy. Your article says that the report just noted a history of those allergies.

The IbanezerScrooge said:

Where are you getting that information? I haven't seen that claim. Your article didn't mention it.

I also note that your article does not repeat the claim that the autopsy showed she had "elevated levels of dairy and nut in her system" which is a really weird way to phrase an autopsy. Your article says that the report just noted a history of those allergies.

Click to expand...

I read the toxicology or medical examiner’s report a while ago. From what I recall (though it’s possible I’m misremembering), her allergen levels were a lot higher than what they’d be from cross contamination.

The linked article is a bit strange. It says they repeatedly asked if the food was allergen free, not that they asked if it had any nuts or dairy.

The article also seems loaded. It makes it seem like they are deigned the right to seek compensation, when that is not true. Rather the venue is defined as arbitration instead of a court case. Something quite reasonable to discourage nuisance cases.