Wrongful Death Lawsuit and Disney's Scary Attempt

[Club Cooloholic]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/14/business/disney-plus-wrongful-death-lawsuit/index.html

I find it scary that Disney is basically telling anyone who bought their tickets through their site or ever had a Disney+ account that you can't sue them and would have to go to arbitration, even if you died at their parks...
Hell this is only over a widower seeking 50k. It's a gross look for Disney, IMO.

 

[deeevo]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/14/business/disney-plus-wrongful-death-lawsuit/index.html

I find it scary that Disney is basically telling anyone who bought their tickets through their site or ever had a Disney+ account that you can't use them and would have to go to arbitration, even if you died at their parks...
Hell this is only over a widower seeking 50k. It's a gross look for Disney, IMO.

I saw it this morning and was disgusted.

 

[HauntedPirate]

This is a company which has lost its moral compass. #ThanksBob

 

[Tha Realest]

“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.”

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

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.

 

[the_rich]

Why are they even named in the lawsuit? Isn't raglan road owned and operated by a third party?

 

[drizgirl]

This is a TERRIBLE look.

 

[the_rich]

And he isn't seeking $50,000. He's seeking in excess of $50,000; it says it right in the article. He's probably suing for tens of millions and I can't see how Disney is at fault here.

 

[the_rich]

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]

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”

 

[Tha Realest]

And he isn't seeking $50,000. He's seeking in excess of $50,000; it says it right in the article. He's probably suing for millions and I can't see how Disney is at fault here.

How could they be at fault? The husband signed up for a trial of Disney+ years ago!

 

[the_rich]

How could they be at fault? The husband signed up for a trial of Disney+ years ago!

They don't own or run the restaurant where this happened.

 

[Willmark]

How could they be at fault? The husband signed up for a trial of Disney+ years ago!

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…

 

[the_rich]

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]

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.

 

[Willmark]

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.

You might want to read what I posted again.

 

[the_rich]

You might want to read what I posted again.

I read it as you were saying I was going to lengths to say it wasn't their fault. If that wasn't what u meant then apologies.

 

[Tha Realest]

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.

 

[invader]

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.

That’s not what moving to compel arbitration even does.

 

[Willmark]

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.