5 ms·

The argument in the legal papers is that access to the park (and access to the restaurant website that claimed that the food that caused the lethal anafilaxis c

The argument in the legal papers is that access to the park (and access to the restaurant website that claimed that the food that caused the lethal anafilaxis contained no allergens) was purchased through the Disney+ account. They also claim that the ticket purchase terms of use explicitly say that they are in addition to the Disney+ account terms of use. I have no idea of this is true, but if it is, it might be more likely than it appears at first for this motion to succeed. At least there is some direct connection between the Disney+ account and the restaurant, it's not just that the husband happens to be Disney+ subscriber who wen to this restaurant. This is quite horrible precedent though if physical injuries of this kind can be covered by a checkbox you clicked without reading on a website somewhere two years before.

pishpash 2y ago
The plaintiff is arguing an equally absurd notion, that because they are suing on behalf of the estate, the estate never signed up for Disney+ because it didn't exist before the death. So you know, it's all absurdity vs absurdity. The reasonable human thing would be to say that an autosigned agreement should have a higher bar on terms and in particar no provision in it can be valid for irrelevant things to the immediate service at hand. (Several others have made the same conclusion.)
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  Found out in the meantime that I was wrong - the tickets are not for this mall and have just as little to do with the case as Disney+ video. Disney's claim is just that absurd...
  - caddemon 2y ago
    This defense is absurd, but also there are no tickets for the mall and Disney doesn't own most of the stores/restaurants in the mall. The restaurant in question is a tenant and the company that owns it is also being sued.
HeavenFox 2y ago
Disney Springs is a shopping mall though. You don't need a ticket to visit. It's also a stretch to claim one agreed to certain terms of service by merely visiting a website.
- fastball 2y ago
  It's also a stretch to claim Disney is responsible for what their tenants serve in restaurants.
  - bee_rider 2y ago
    Yeah; wonder why their lawyers didn’t go with that angle. It seems much more intuitive.
    - nraynaud 2y ago
      They probably did, it’s just not newsworthy. They generally give as many arguments as they can in support of a motion they just need one to work, but the news is only interested in what’s surprising, not reporting on the trial.
      - kayfox 2y ago
        Lawyers are ethically obligated to put every argument that could work in their filings.
    - thrill 2y ago
      Because the purpose of a lawyer is to go with every viable angle.
    - tpmoney 2y ago
      They did. Their answer to the lawsuit advances that argument. This is a separate motion to stay the lawsuit proceedings and refer it to arbitration per the terms they claim were agreed to. Or put another way this motion isn’t claiming they aren’t liable because of the agreement to arbitration, they’re arguing that the venue is incorrect based on that agreement. The motion is for a stay of proceedings pending the arbitration. Edit: In fact the plaintiffs answer to this motion probably illustrates why this motion was filed in the first place. If you have and arbitration clause but you participate in a lawsuit voluntarily, the courts view this as waiving your right to arbitration. Presumably this is to protect against a case where a side engages in a lawsuit and seeing that it’s going badly for them, tries to have it switched to arbitration later. In order to have arbitration at all, they have to start by arguing for arbitration before committing too far into a court case
dathinab 2y ago
but even then, forced arbitration should not be legal for anything more serious ever (and isn't in countires with a less broken legal system)
rlpb 2y ago
I think you make a good point. But here's my counterargument: if I buy someone a ticket to a concert, then are they bound to the terms I agreed, including in relation to harm to them caused by (alleged) supplier negligence? I'd argue that they have a claim in tort, not contract, and therefore the terms of my contract with the supplier are not relevant.

pishpash 2y ago

The plaintiff is arguing an equally absurd notion, that because they are suing on behalf of the estate, the estate never signed up for Disney+ because it didn't exist before the death. So you know, it's all absurdity vs absurdity. The reasonable human thing would be to say that an autosigned agreement should have a higher bar on terms and in particar no provision in it can be valid for irrelevant things to the immediate service at hand. (Several others have made the same conclusion.)

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
tsimionescu 2y ago
Found out in the meantime that I was wrong - the tickets are not for this mall and have just as little to do with the case as Disney+ video. Disney's claim is just that absurd...
- caddemon 2y ago
  This defense is absurd, but also there are no tickets for the mall and Disney doesn't own most of the stores/restaurants in the mall. The restaurant in question is a tenant and the company that owns it is also being sued.

HeavenFox 2y ago

Disney Springs is a shopping mall though. You don't need a ticket to visit. It's also a stretch to claim one agreed to certain terms of service by merely visiting a website.

fastball 2y ago
It's also a stretch to claim Disney is responsible for what their tenants serve in restaurants.
- bee_rider 2y ago
  Yeah; wonder why their lawyers didn’t go with that angle. It seems much more intuitive.
  - nraynaud 2y ago
    They probably did, it’s just not newsworthy. They generally give as many arguments as they can in support of a motion they just need one to work, but the news is only interested in what’s surprising, not reporting on the trial.
    - kayfox 2y ago
      Lawyers are ethically obligated to put every argument that could work in their filings.
  - thrill 2y ago
    Because the purpose of a lawyer is to go with every viable angle.
  - tpmoney 2y ago
    They did. Their answer to the lawsuit advances that argument. This is a separate motion to stay the lawsuit proceedings and refer it to arbitration per the terms they claim were agreed to. Or put another way this motion isn’t claiming they aren’t liable because of the agreement to arbitration, they’re arguing that the venue is incorrect based on that agreement. The motion is for a stay of proceedings pending the arbitration. Edit: In fact the plaintiffs answer to this motion probably illustrates why this motion was filed in the first place. If you have and arbitration clause but you participate in a lawsuit voluntarily, the courts view this as waiving your right to arbitration. Presumably this is to protect against a case where a side engages in a lawsuit and seeing that it’s going badly for them, tries to have it switched to arbitration later. In order to have arbitration at all, they have to start by arguing for arbitration before committing too far into a court case

dathinab 2y ago

but even then, forced arbitration should not be legal for anything more serious ever (and isn't in countires with a less broken legal system)

rlpb 2y ago

I think you make a good point. But here's my counterargument: if I buy someone a ticket to a concert, then are they bound to the terms I agreed, including in relation to harm to them caused by (alleged) supplier negligence? I'd argue that they have a claim in tort, not contract, and therefore the terms of my contract with the supplier are not relevant.