Disney is backing away from a legal dispute over an allergy-related death at one of its restaurants: Rather than have the case settled by an arbitration board, the company now seeks to settle the suit filed by the deceased’s widower in regular court in Florida. Disney’s lawyers had previously requested that the suit be dismissed on the grounds that the man had taken a trial subscription to Disney+ in the past and agreed to resolve all disputes out of court. The proposal made international headlines.
Advertisement
The plaintiff’s wife died of anaphylactic shock after eating at a Disney theme park restaurant. The food was contaminated with foods she was allergic to. She had told the waiters about her allergy several times. The 42-year-old woman died and her husband went to court.
Arguments attract attention
Disney recently filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit to prevent this. In the argument, the entertainment giant referred to a clause in the general terms and conditions of the streaming service Disney+, which the plaintiff accepted when taking a trial subscription in 2019: Disputes must go to arbitration – in all matters affecting the Disney group and its subsidiaries. There was a similar clause in the terms and conditions when the plaintiff bought tickets for the park.
After the case was taken up by several media, Disney is now changing its strategy. The court hearing scheduled for October has been canceled. Earlier this week, Josh D’Amaro, president of the Disney Experience, told several media outlets that the company is waiving its right to arbitration. “At Disney, we strive to place humanity above all other considerations,” D’Amaro is quoted as saying. “Given the unique circumstances such as this case, we believe this situation requires a sensitive approach to finding a solution for a family that has suffered such a painful loss.”
Questions about applicability of clause
The plaintiff’s lawyer called Disney’s actions absurd, outrageous and unfair. In its initial response to the lawsuit in May, Disney did not address the mediation process. Instead, the company argued that it was not the owner of the pub, but merely the landlord.
Joseph Sellers, an attorney who regularly files large class-action lawsuits, said the company’s withdrawal was unusual. Reuters news agency. The decision indicates that Disney’s lawyers did not consider this approach promising. Voluntary withdrawal is less embarrassing than a possible defeat in court.
The case is filed in Florida’s 9th District Court under case number 2024-CA-001616-O.
(Are)
