- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: OP UPDATED - Disney wants wrongful death lawsuit thrown out bc the plaintiff had Disney+
Posted on 8/14/24 at 10:29 pm to Dixie Normus
Posted on 8/14/24 at 10:29 pm to Dixie Normus
It comes off tone deaf at best. Even if they win this, the negative publicity from the case costs them far more than the wrongful death suit would have.
For a company whose image is all about PR, this is the kind of case they should have quietly settled rather than trying to push for binding arbitration over horseshite reasons.
For a company whose image is all about PR, this is the kind of case they should have quietly settled rather than trying to push for binding arbitration over horseshite reasons.
0
Posted on 8/15/24 at 1:23 am to Dixie Normus
quote:
Any lawyer with half a brain, which I assume the lawyers Disney can afford have, would tell their client this is a stupid argument. It’s much more likely that it’s some in-house counsel that never actually practiced forcing the attorneys to do this. This would be one of the dumbest decisions I’ve ever seen if it won and would open the arbitration floodgates everywhere.
I don't know how much faith I'd put in Disney lawyers. They seemed to truly believe they could win a lawsuit against the state of Florida in federal court over state-created special districts. Disney's lawyers are batting 1.000 when it comes to advancing spurious legal theories in court these days.
Posted on 8/15/24 at 4:56 am to SemiNoblePursuit
quote:
I feel like this should also be included. If true, this was likely the primary argument of whatever Disney filed
He purchased tickets at a different time for a different thing.
That shouldn’t bind him in perpetuity to the legal whims of Disney for any unrelated future events.
Additionally in this day and age, there should be some “fine print” law that disallows companies from burying unreasonable and ridiculous legal concessions in the fine print of these online user agreements.
Oldheads can be like “read the fine print you lazy kids” all day but they are like 30 pages long and probably all include bullshite that you don’t even understand anyway. So we are just going to not sign up for stuff or hire an attorney every time we sign up for an account, just to have them advise us not to sign it? Haha
This post was edited on 8/15/24 at 4:57 am
Posted on 8/15/24 at 7:04 am to Hester Carries
Your Xbox console exploded, severely injuring/killing you, but Microsoft claims in court that your family can't sue because you once had a 14 day Game Pass free trial.
Posted on 8/15/24 at 7:13 am to imjustafatkid
Idk. If I had allergies to the point food could kill me I wouldn't eat out. Even if you withheld all harmful ingredients cross contamination is possible.
Posted on 8/15/24 at 7:20 am to Dixie Normus
Disney doesn't own the restaurants though. They are third party. Does it say what place they went to?
I always liked the Boathouse.
I always liked the Boathouse.
Posted on 8/15/24 at 7:21 am to Napoleon
quote:
Idk. If I had allergies to the point food could kill me I wouldn't eat out. Even if you withheld all harmful ingredients cross contamination is possible.
Also true.
Posted on 8/15/24 at 7:24 am to Napoleon
Yeah if the severity of the allergies is so great that it leads to death in such a short time frame, there is no way I'm literally putting my life on the line for complete strangers.
And honestly restaurants need to start informing customers with allergies that they may not always be able to ensure complete safety that way they aren't liable. I'm sure they would get sued at some point for refusing to serve someone, but ideally that is easy to get tossed out when it was pretty much "yeah we can serve them, we just can't promise no possible contamination."
And honestly restaurants need to start informing customers with allergies that they may not always be able to ensure complete safety that way they aren't liable. I'm sure they would get sued at some point for refusing to serve someone, but ideally that is easy to get tossed out when it was pretty much "yeah we can serve them, we just can't promise no possible contamination."
.png)
Posted on 8/15/24 at 7:37 am to imjustafatkid
What movie/tv show is this thread about?
Posted on 8/15/24 at 7:44 am to Napoleon
quote:
Disney doesn't own the restaurants though. They are third party. Does it say what place they went to?
I always liked the Boathouse.
Disney does own and operate some of the restaurants and stores at Disney Springs. This happened at Raglan Road, which I believe is owned by a third party but I don't know if Disney has any hand in operating it. I know you can book reservations there through the Disney website.
If Disney were to argue that they don't own the restaurant and therefore shouldn't be a party to the lawsuit, then that would make sense. Full agreement with you there.
And yes, Boathouse is awesome.
Posted on 8/15/24 at 7:45 am to sorantable
quote:
What movie/tv show is this thread about?
You didn't know Disney+ is a movie/TV streaming platform? Where you been? Are we going to stop having threads about numbers of Disney+ subscribers (or threads about any streaming app in general)? What movie/tv show do those types of threads talk about?
This post was edited on 8/15/24 at 8:00 am
Posted on 8/15/24 at 7:48 am to ThoseGuys
quote:
And honestly restaurants need to start informing customers with allergies that they may not always be able to ensure complete safety that way they aren't liable. I'm sure they would get sued at some point for refusing to serve someone, but ideally that is easy to get tossed out when it was pretty much "yeah we can serve them, we just can't promise no possible contamination."
I totally agree with the personal responsibility aspect. The problem is Disney really advertises itself as being able to do handle all sorts of allergies. They invite people like this to enjoy their facilities and assure them they can be accommodated. Oftentimes the chef of whatever restaurant will come directly to your table to ask about your allergies and what you need to avoid.
Posted on 8/15/24 at 8:23 am to imjustafatkid
the alleged facts are that she repeatedly told them about the allergy and was assured multiple times she was getting the safe food.
Posted on 8/15/24 at 9:24 am to SammyTiger
quote:
the alleged facts are that she repeatedly told them about the allergy and was assured multiple times she was getting the safe food.
And I have no doubt that happened. One of my children has a mild allergy that is easy to avoid and does not cause anything near a reaction this drastic, and anytime we mention that to Disney we will have multiple people, including a chef, come to our table to specifically discuss it. They really advertise themselves as being able to work with all manner of allergies.
Posted on 8/15/24 at 9:26 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
Most people feel the opposite way, that the old NFL was superior and the old NBA was hard to watch
In other words the guy watched season 1 of the Mandalorian and dipped out
Posted on 8/15/24 at 9:27 am to imjustafatkid
Disney should be laughed out of court for this. No way does a husband signing up for Disney+ waive his wife's rights
Posted on 8/15/24 at 10:14 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
Your Xbox console exploded, severely injuring/killing you, but Microsoft claims in court that your family can't sue because you once had a 14 day Game Pass free trial.
more like you agreed to the terms and conditions of microsoft word.
Posted on 8/15/24 at 10:40 am to ThoseGuys
quote:
And honestly restaurants need to start informing customers with allergies that they may not always be able to ensure complete safety that way they aren't liable. I'm sure they would get sued at some point for refusing to serve someone, but ideally that is easy to get tossed out when it was pretty much "yeah we can serve them, we just can't promise no possible contamination."
Should they just put it in some fine print on the menu and say that by ordering and consuming the food you would agree to arbitration?
Posted on 8/15/24 at 10:46 am to dawgfan24348
quote:
Hopefully whatever court sees this sees the absurdity of this case and sides against Disney
If the way I am reading this is correct (dangerous assumption that the facts are accurate and I'm reading it correctly), Disney just trying to get this out of the courts and into their system so they can control/limit the information made public? If this is truly the angle Disney is going with, I could see the court's partially siding with Disney and agreeing to try to have this case arbitrated/mediated within a certain time frame. In my very limited experience, if the parties are truly interested in settlement the court's will do whatever they can in their power to give both sides some leeway to try to get it off of their docket.
Posted on 8/15/24 at 1:15 pm to Weekend Warrior79
nah, they know they’ll get a better deal in the end with arbitration than in front of a jury.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News