For sure benefit of those that haven’t seen the LegalEagle video, why was Disney likely to be released from the suit?
Comment on US couple blocked from suing Uber after crash say daughter agreed to Uber Eats terms
ZMonster@lemmy.world 1 month agoI realize that there is no way for me to argue this without sounding like some sort of neck beard corporate shill; but if you truly believe that the Disney+ debacle was at a basic level - Evil corporation uses despicable loophole to leave innocent widower stuck with the consequences of corporate negligence - then you really don’t know anything about that case at all, and singing in harmony with the endless voices parroting the same misinformation is not something you should be proud of.
Fuck Disney, all day, every day, forever. No doubt. But they tried to use a tactic that was EVERY BIT as disgusting as the one that roped them into the lawsuit to begin with. It is extraordinarily likely that Disney was going to be released from that suit but after the PR spin, they decided to throw the guy a bone just to save face. We don’t have to agree that Disney was somehow being magnanimous, but they chose to take one on the chin that apparently only they and Legal Eagle knew they would get out of.
I don’t have a problem with people spitting at Disney, but at least do it for a truthful and reliable reason.
WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 1 month ago
ZMonster@lemmy.world 1 month ago
The reason why literally any motion to dismiss would have likely been successful on the merits is because the only way, literally the one and only way the plaintiff was able to include disney in the lawsuit is because disney owns the land that was leased to the completely separate and not-affiliated-in-any-way-to-disney Irish Pub restaurant. The plaintiff argued that because there were pictures of disney owned lands for lease on their site and some of those pictures showed current lessees, ie some included the Irish Pub restaurant, he argued that they were also liable.
But if the connection to Disney was so remote and tenuous, why include them at all? Simple. Why sue a poorly managed restaurant that will likely collapse under the fairest fiduciary breeze leaving very little remuneration for you, when Disney’s pockets are vastly deeper? Now, again, fuck disney forever, so I could care less that someone tried to take a bite out of disney in an unscrupulous way. But if you’re going to do some shady shit to a corporation known for shady shit doings in an economy that encourages the most shady shit under a system that cultivates new ways of doing shit more shadily, then you have to expect them to fight less than fair.
I don’t want to speak ill of the dead, so I’ll assume that the deceased had no idea what was happening and instead speak ill of the living - in this case, her complete, utter, totally useless fucking husband. A moron of the highest degree who took his anaphalactically compromised partner with a known and fatal sensitivity to nuts… TO AN IRISH FUCKING PUB RESTAURANT!!! After the restaurant had demonstrated multiple times that things were not in order, they continued to dine. Assuming that these things (none of these as of a week ago at least have been denied by the plaintiff) are true, I honestly think the guy should be investigated for manslaughter.
So, you can understand why seeing people cry alligator tears over the poor innocent village idiot whose incompetence has now cost someone their life is pretty fucking sad to see. I mean, the constant and incessant misplaced vitriol toward Disney while they prepare to settle with a guy they owe nothing to is kind of making disney out to be the good guy - and that is the true travesty IMO.
PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Disney is obviously just obfuscating their liability by running the restaurant as a separate entity. The restaurant can’t operate without following Disney’s rules. By all intents and purposes the restaurant is controlled by Disney and Disney either knew or should have known that the restaurant was putting people at risk.
ZMonster@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Your uninformed conjecture is not fact or truth.
WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Thanks for taking the time to write that up!
That all makes sense - though unless there’s info in missing, I’d argue the woman should have been responsible for managing her own allergies rather than her husband, but that’s beside the point, and I understand your position on speaking ill of the dead.
Whatever the case, it does certainly seem like the truth was steamrolled by a good story - though I do think the waiver arguments underpinning that side of the case will wind up getting pressure tested in pretty short order.
Thanks again.
ZMonster@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I don’t disagree, but I believe there was a communication barrier for her. I could be wrong and don’t remember right now, but I believe she did not know English.
though I do think the waiver arguments underpinning that side of the case will wind up getting pressure tested in pretty short order.
Possibly. Disney withdrew their motion after the PR hit them, and are likely negotiating a settlement. But other cases may change the way arbitration agreements and contract law are handled.
theneverfox@pawb.social 1 month ago
Because Disney didn’t own the restaurant, it was a private restaurant renting a building in a shopping center owned by Disney
Disney was just the landlord in this situation, and so they honestly had nothing to do with it
orcrist@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Your argument falls flat, because even interpreted in the best possible light, it only points out that the plaintiff’s lawyer was sleazy, just like Disney’s lawyers are. As if that somehow justifies the behavior.
But everyone already knows that liability is this weird area, where many of the lawyers appear kind of slimy, but even if they are, the outcome matters because the plaintiffs are normal people. That’s not news. And if in fact Disney didn’t have liability because their only connection was land ownership, as you claimed, of course the judge would have checked them from the case. There would have been no need for gamesmanship. There would have been no need to throw their reputation in the toilet. All of which is to say, if we interpret the facts generously to you and Disney, they still look terrible.
ZMonster@lemmy.world 1 month ago
If you go to your friend’s house for dinner and they end up giving you E Coli, do you sue their landlord? Because that is the situation you are glossing over by saying:
even interpreted in the best possible light
This is very reductive of the situation according to the plaintiff himself; which means you are either insincere or incapable. Either case leaves me entirely disinterested.
Saleh@feddit.org 1 month ago
How is a private gift/shared activity subject to the same rules like a corporation selling you an item for profit?
I don’t have health inspectors in my kitchen. I better hope restaurants have them regularly enough to enforce hygiene standards.
ZMonster@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Disney also does not have health inspectors in another company’s kitchen, because they don’t own that fucking kitchen. Bro, you are arguing with a keyboard warrior on Lemmy. Your total lack of understanding is clearly established by both the raft of legal professionals who have already demonstrated the reality as well as THE PLAINTIFFS FUCKING FILING. So by all means, reach out to the plaintiff and explain to him and his lawyer how much more you know about it. 🙄
some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 1 month ago
I clicked through to see your reply explaining further, but this reply sucked. You didn’t explain shit in it.