Wrongful Death Lawsuit and Disney's Scary Attempt

[UNCgolf]

If State law allows it and you rule against it then your ruling should be overruled on appeal and if you continue to make rulings that run counter to the law as written then you should be removed from office.
The judiciary doesn't make the laws, it interprets the laws.

What do you think interpreting the law means? And common law, which is a major part of the legal system (and especially so for contract law), essentially is made by the judiciary.

Even if a state had a law specifically stating forced arbitration clauses are legal in this exact situation (and I can't imagine any state actually has any law remotely like that), that doesn't mean the law is unimpeachable. A state could pass a law throwing you in jail for making that exact comment, but that law certainly shouldn't be enforceable upon judicial review. It has to be reviewed in context of other things, like the state constitution.

 

[TsWade2]

I don’t think I want to hear this! This makes me feel bad as a Disney fan.

 

[Lilofan]

I signed up for an ESPN account years ago, that I use to book my Disney vacations. Im sure I agreed to arbitration when I signed up. If I got hurt at Disney and sued them I would fully expect to have to go to arbitration, just like I would if I was hurt at a sports stadium, concert hall or anywhere else I purchased a ticket. The same concept applies to the Disney plus sign up, since you can use the account for Disney's other services (like booking a vacation). Arbitration is not immunity from liability.

Arbitration does not help the family in that after all said and done they cannot appeal and just live with it.

 

[JoeCamel]

Arbitration does not help the family in that after all said and done they cannot appeal and just live with it.

Nor does wrongful death suits. All you can get in either case is money

 

[Chi84]

Nor does wrongful death suits. All you can get in either case is money

From what I understand, arbitration is faster, more private and arbitrators rarely issue awards with extremely high punitive damages.

I don’t think Disney’s motion should be granted here for the reasons stated by @UNCgolf, but there’s nothing about the request for arbitration that allows them to avoid liability for negligence. That’s nonsense.

 

[Chi84]

This is a basic description of arbitration, which is what Disney is requesting. Just for information purposes.

Demystifying the Arbitration Process

Gain insights into the step-by-step procedure of arbitration. Understand the roles of arbitrators, submission of evidence, hearings, and the final award.

law.pepperdine.edu

 

[Club Cooloholic]

No - but I'm also not going to get all worked up about lawyers doing lawyering. Same way that if the tables were turned, you'd be expecting your lawyer to apply all possible elements to get you the best outcome.

If you're going to get all emotional argument about every point brought up in a civil procedure - I'd suggest you stay away from litigation all together. It's not a topic decided by your heart.

Well considering I don't happen to own a multi billion dollar company, I have more in common with the person bringing the claim. I understand plenty about tort law. Very rarely would any personal injury lawyer suggest that you should push for arbitration. People on here thinking it's "just another way to ascertain liability", might not really understand arbitration vs a court case. But anyway have it folks, yes Disney is doing great things here, maybe giving away ones soul can be added to the next terms for Disney+!

 

[Donald Esq]

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'm a lawyer and I view both of those arguments as unconscionable. Had she been killed somehow by Disney+ (maybe an epileptic seizure while watching or something) or while dining at Epcot (or pursuant to a dining package purchased on the website), these arguments would at least have some merit. This lady's meal at Raglan Rd was not part of the bargained for exchange with signing up for Disney+ or even from purchasing an Epcot ticket. Frankly, the lawyer who put forward these arguments should at least face some consideration for sanctions.

 

[Donald Esq]

That’s not at all what Disney is saying. Just that the case should go to arbitration.

I’m sure when the time comes, Disney will allege they’re not liable.

Arbitration is a death sentence for lawsuits. There's a reason corporations try to impose it wherever they can.

 

[Chi84]

I'm a lawyer and I view both of those arguments as unconscionable. Had she been killed somehow by Disney+ (maybe an epileptic seizure while watching or something) or while dining at Epcot (or pursuant to a dining package purchased on the website), these arguments would at least have some merit. This lady's meal at Raglan Rd was not part of the bargained for exchange with signing up for Disney+ or even from purchasing an Epcot ticket. Frankly, the lawyer who put forward these arguments should at least face some consideration for sanctions.

I wouldn’t go as far as sanctions, but after taking the time to read Disney’s motion and the plaintiff’s response, I’m surprised Disney filed it.

I can’t see any judge ruling that the parties agreed to arbitrate disputes other than those arising from the streaming service. The MDE website terms and conditions (where the ticket was purchased) do not even contain an arbitration provision. There’s more, but too detailed to go into here.

In short, I have no idea what Disney was thinking.

 

[flynnibus]

People on here thinking it's "just another way to ascertain liability", might not really understand arbitration vs a court case

People do - by saying so they aren’t minimizing disney’s intent. But they are speaking with facts instead of hyperbole and emotional pleas.

 

[Chi84]

Arbitration is a death sentence for lawsuits. There's a reason corporations try to impose it wherever they can.

I’m aware. But there’s no justification for the false headlines and news reports I’ve been reading.

 

[Donald Esq]

Arbitration is a different forum for trying the case. It is not the same as settling out of court.

Arbitration is a sham that is used by corporations to avoid liability for their actions. If arbiters started handing out million dollar arbitration awards companies would stop using them and the arbiter would go out of business.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

To those asking about the dairy, IIRC the previous thread about this case (when the incident first came to light) revealed there was dairy in the batter for the onion rings.

 

[Chi84]

Arbitration is a sham that is used by corporations to avoid liability for their actions. If arbiters started handing out million dollar arbitration awards companies would stop using them and the arbiter would go out of business.

Well alrighty then . . .

 

[Tony the Tigger]

It looks like one way the plaintiff is alleging negligence against Disney is based on representations made on its website about how allergies are handled.

Disney’s motion is arguing that when creating a Disney+ account on Disney’s website, the plaintiff clicked a box agreeing to all terms and conditions.

The terms and conditions require the parties to submit to binding arbitration and provide that the issue of arbitrability itself must be decided by the arbitrator.

Disney is asking for an order compelling the plaintiff to arbitrate and to stay the lawsuit until after arbitration.

Generally, standard practice in a tort case is to file suit against all parties who may be liable and allege all viable theories. Failing to do so could result in losing the right to sue them later or to raise a different theory should the lawsuit take an unexpected turn.

The court will rule on the motion and the case will proceed. None of this is meant to personally insult the plaintiff or anyone else.

Here’s my issue with this:

Disney fairly recently combined all their accounts into one. I remember having to change my D+ password for some reason, which then unintentionally (on my part) changed all my Disney passwords to that password.

I can see Disney doing that to #1 simplify things, and #2 make D+ subscribers more easily able to buy park tickets and shop on ShopDisney. That’s partly a convenience for customers as well.

But:

I suspect one is thinking differently if one is signing TOS for theme park tickets vs. on a streaming service.

I suspect one wouldn’t expect the TOS on a shopping website or streaming service to have anything to do with their vacation liability (possibly years down the road) or to carry similar or comparable risk (bodily harm vs. common online risks.)

And I suspect a court may recognize that distinction. It is not reasonable to assume the TOS on a streaming service would carry over to a theme park; and IMO that should not be allowed. In this era of mega-conglomerates, signing TOS on a streaming service should not be allowed to carry over to a completely separate activity.

Otherwise the TOS for attending a baseball game or concert could shield a company from a lawsuit over poisoned toothpaste or faulty car brakes.

 

[Donald Esq]

Also, for those saying that the lawsuit references the website so therefore the TOS for D+ apply, no MDE account is required to view the Raglan Road menu and allergy info, so it doesn't make sense that the TOS from creating an account would apply to information that doesn't even require the account. No MDE account is required to eat at Raglan either. Neither side says they made a reservation using MDE. If they made their reservation on Open Table, by phone, or they were a walkup, they wouldn't have utilized MDE's service in any way to trigger the any potential MDE arbitration clause. Additionally, in most jurisdictions a wrongful death suit is technically a dispute between the deceased and the alleged responsible party. The creation of an account, if even relevant at all, should only matter if the deceased had an account subject to the arbitration clause, not her husband who is merely her representative in the case. That could be different in FL, but I don't practice there so I'm not sure on that particular front.

 

[Chi84]

Here’s my issue with this:

Disney fairly recently combined all their accounts into one. I remember having to change my D+ password for some reason, which then unintentionally (on my part) changed all my Disney passwords to that password.

I can see Disney doing that to #1 simplify things, and #2 make D+ subscribers more easily able to buy park tickets and shop on ShopDisney. That’s partly a convenience for customers as well.

But:

I suspect one is thinking differently if one is signing TOS for theme park tickets vs. on a streaming service.

I suspect one wouldn’t expect the TOS on a shopping website or streaming service to have anything to do with their vacation liability (possibly years down the road) or to carry similar or comparable risk (bodily harm vs. common online risks.)

And I suspect a court may recognize that distinction. It is not reasonable to assume the TOS on a streaming service would carry over to a theme park; and IMO that should not be allowed. In this era of mega-conglomerates, signing TOS on a streaming service should not be allowed to carry over to a completely separate activity.

Otherwise the TOS for attending a baseball game or concert could shield a company from a lawsuit over poisoned toothpaste or faulty car brakes.

I agree with this, as I stated above. I was simply setting out Disney’s argument and the process.

 

[Chi84]

Also, for those saying that the lawsuit references the website so therefore the TOS for D+ apply, no MDE account is required to view the Raglan Road menu and allergy, so it doesn't make sense that the TOS from creating an account would apply to information that doesn't even require the account. Additionally, in most jurisdictions a wrongful death suit is technically a dispute between the deceased and the alleged responsible party. The creation of an account, if even relevant at all, should only matter if the deceased had an account subject to the arbitration clause, not her husband who is merely her representative in the case.

I don’t think you’ll find anyone here saying Disney is in the right. If you read the posts, they’re just explaining Disney’s position to people confused by erroneous news headlines.

 

[flynnibus]

Disney fairly recently combined all their accounts into one. I remember having to change my D+ password for some reason

Disney has had combined accounts for ages. Disneyworld, disney cruises, espn, d+, +++