Comment on US couple blocked from suing Uber after crash say daughter agreed to Uber Eats terms

• ZMonster@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ 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.

  source

  • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ 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.

    source

    • ZMonster@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Your uninformed conjecture is not fact or truth.

      source

      • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        Show me the lease agreement that says I’m wrong. I guarantee it’s much different than a standard commercial lease with more stringent requirements. If Disney is making specific requirements then they have a duty to enforce them.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ 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.

    source

    • ZMonster@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ 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.

      source
• theneverfox@pawb.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ 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

  source