Wrongful Death Lawsuit and Disney's Scary Attempt

Club Cooloholic

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Last edited:

deeevo

Well-Known Member

Tha Realest

Well-Known Member
“Today, The Walt Disney Company is proud to announce that we have acquired America Online, Inc. As part of this acquisition, we are proud to announce the replacement of Siemens as a sponsor for Spaceship Earth.

This also means that any of you that owned a PC between 1996-2009 cannot sue us, as you most certainly would’ve received, and redeemed, a free trial offer for two weeks of AOL service.”
 

the_rich

Well-Known Member
From the article

Piccolo is seeking damages in excess of $50,000 pursuant to Florida’s Wrongful Death Act, as well as damages for mental pain and suffering, loss of companionship and protection, loss of income and medical and funeral expenses.
 

invader

Well-Known Member
They are fighting over $50k when someone died!? Give them $100k - issue the biggest apology ever and then charge Raglan Road’s parent company $100k extra over the next 4 years.
That’s not what the $50k from the Complaint means. It’s a jurisdictional requirement to be in Circuit Court in Florida. That’s why Plaintiffs plead “in excess of $50,000”
 

the_rich

Well-Known Member
The lengths some will go to say “it’s not Disney’s fault!”

Now, there is a point of saying “hey are just the landlord here” but I don’t think anyone can seriously back Disney’s “novel” attempt to use “you signed up for Disney+” as a defense…
If this is directed at my post, my point is they don't run or own the restaurant. The people that do are the ones that should be used.
 

Unbanshee

Well-Known Member
I know that using the Disney+ excuse is what all of the media outlets are using to get clicks, but Disney also claims protection from the WDW website disclaimers.

"Company lawyers also claim that because Piccolo used the Walt Disney Parks’ website to buy Epcot Center tickets, Disney is shielded from a lawsuit..."

Disney's lawyers are covering their bases and doing their jobs. I guess clickbait media is also doing its job.
 

Tha Realest

Well-Known Member
They don't own or run the restaurant where this happened.
They’re a property owner, they control reservations, and likely have certain requirements in terms of operational standards and conditions in a way that makes them possibly liable, depending on the theory.

Either way, the relationship between TWDC and Raglan Road is far, far less attenuated than the idea that signing up for a trial on D+ means you waive all liability against the company on any issue whatsoever.
 

Willmark

Well-Known Member
I know that using the Disney+ excuse is what all of the media outlets are using to get clicks, but Disney also claims protection from the WDW website disclaimers.

"Company lawyers also claim that because Piccolo used the Walt Disney Parks’ website to buy Epcot Center tickets, Disney is shielded from a lawsuit..."

Disney's lawyers are covering their bases and doing their jobs. I guess clickbait media is also doing its job.
I’ve read this a couple of times and am unsure of your meaning here.

Is it your contention that Disney is ok with the Disney+ defense?

I could see if they try to say “hey it’s not our restaurant we’re just the landlords here.” That would at least make sense.

Not sure how they think Disney+ TAC covers them however.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom