Wrongful Death Lawsuit and Disney's Scary Attempt

Tha Realest

Tha Realest

Well-Known Member
DisneyCane said:
To say that Count III is a bit of a stretch is an understatement. It is making allegations of facts that the Plaintiff can not yet have knowledge of. They will need to see the agreements between Disney and Raglan Rd. in order to determine if their allegations have any merit at all. Likely they are going to find things like Raglan Rd. only being allowed to serve Coke products or certain menu items that are exclusive to particular tenants (as is done in leases all the time to prevent competitors in the same shopping center, for example) and then they will try to use those "controls" to argue that Disney had control over the menu and operations of the restaurant.

The allegations about Disney making representations via the website are far more sound than Count III. Using the TOS argument, Disney will likely not be able to force Count III into arbitration because Count III is not related to the website or app. They will likely move for dismissal of Count III based on not having control over the menu or operation of Raglan Rd.
Click to expand...
I never said you had to agree with it. That’s (hopefully!) for a jury to decide. But let’s lay to rest this notion everything about this case revolves around the website.
 
Club Cooloholic

Club Cooloholic

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Fido Chuckwagon said:
Good thing we have a thing called a “trial” where these sorts of factual issues can be sorted out. Disney’s attempt to get this moved to arb based on the D+ subscription is ludicrous.
Click to expand...
That's the issue, ludicrous and a potentially limiting precedent to any park goer.
I will say, too that Disney does not have a typical relationship with restaurants. I would be curious if they are allowed to have any influence on menu items, etc and they certainly tout allergy trained staff. I believe I can use the dining plan at this restaurant, to the average guest they have now idea what is Disney owned and what is third party the way it is presented.
 
Last edited:
D

DisneyCane

Well-Known Member
Tha Realest said:
I never said you had to agree with it. That’s (hopefully!) for a jury to decide. But let’s lay to rest this notion everything about this case revolves around the website.
Click to expand...
Count III against Disney being dismissed will likely be a judge's decision based on whether it is a fact or not that Disney had the power to control the menu/operation.

The only parts of the suit that can be alleged based upon facts known to the plaintiff are based on the website. I don't believe it is possible to move for arbitration on select counts. If the lawsuit didn't charge the website based counts, Disney wouldn't be trying to get arbitration compelled based on the TOS agreements.

Otherwise, they would make that motion on pretty much every injury suit filed against them since pretty much everybody agrees to the TOS to purchase tickets.
 
D

DisneyCane

Well-Known Member
Club Cooloholic said:
That's the issue, ludicrous and a potentially limiting president to any park goer.
I will say, too that Disney does not have a typical relationship with restaurants. I would be curious if they are allowed to have any influence on menu items, etc and they certainly tout allergy trained staff. I believe I can use the dining plan at this restaurant, to the average guest they have now idea what is Disney owned and what is third party the way it is presented.
Click to expand...
Their relationship with restaurants is VERY TYPICAL of large resorts. Go to the website of any casino resort (or even some standalone large casinos) and the relationship is very similar. You can see the menus, often make reservations and sometimes place orders on the resort's website. You can also pay for your meal with a room charge and use dining credits.

Disney/Disney Springs is not some unique place for this type of relationship with tenant restaurants.
 
F

Fido Chuckwagon

Well-Known Member
Tha Realest said:
Yes. And I read their statement.

It’s entirely possible to defend your company without sending a lackey to see if someone, four years earlier, opted in to a D+ trial, and try and use that as a “gotcha” to minimize liability.

This is preposterous, and I am glad they’re catching heat for this attempt (which I hope blows up in their face).
Click to expand...
Good thing D+ didn’t exist when that toddler was killed by an alligator at the Grand Floridian…
 
L

Lilofan

Well-Known Member
Club Cooloholic said:
That's the issue, ludicrous and a potentially limiting president to any park goer.
I will say, too that Disney does not have a typical relationship with restaurants. I would be curious if they are allowed to have any influence on menu items, etc and they certainly tout allergy trained staff. I believe I can use the dining plan at this restaurant, to the average guest they have now idea what is Disney owned and what is third party the way it is presented.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t one can tell you is a cast member and who is third party based on their name tags ? The WDW CM name tags are the same design I believe.
 
NelsonRD

NelsonRD

Well-Known Member
You cannot release your constitutional rights, in this case, the right to due process, or suing.
It doesn’t matter what waiver you sign, or what you have, you always have the right to sue.
 
F

Fido Chuckwagon

Well-Known Member
DisneyCane said:
Their relationship with restaurants is VERY TYPICAL of large resorts. Go to the website of any casino resort (or even some standalone large casinos) and the relationship is very similar. You can see the menus, often make reservations and sometimes place orders on the resort's website. You can also pay for your meal with a room charge and use dining credits.

Disney/Disney Springs is not some unique place for this type of relationship with tenant restaurants.
Click to expand...
Again, the website AS IT EXISTED at the time, referenced Disney cast members and an allergy friendly menu. Is that typical of a Las Vegas Casino?
 
flynnibus

flynnibus

Premium Member
DisneyCane said:
Their relationship with restaurants is VERY TYPICAL of large resorts. Go to the website of any casino resort (or even some standalone large casinos) and the relationship is very similar. You can see the menus, often make reservations and sometimes place orders on the resort's website. You can also pay for your meal with a room charge and use dining credits.

Disney/Disney Springs is not some unique place for this type of relationship with tenant restaurants.
Click to expand...
Your argument here isn’t very sound. Just because their visibility and customer exposure is similar or common that doesn’t necessarily equate to the intertwining or constraints on the operations as a whole being similar/common. For instance… does Disney constrain what kind of menu options they can serve? Does Disney have additional staff training requirements they impose? Is disney part of any auditing or compliance checking?

The possibilities go well beyond the commercial integration of marketing and sales…. Because disney is known to be such a control freak when it comes to who it allows inside the gates.
 
Chi84

Chi84

Premium Member
NelsonRD said:
You cannot release your constitutional rights, in this case, the right to due process, or suing.
It doesn’t matter what waiver you sign, or what you have, you always have the right to sue.
Click to expand...
Arbitration clauses are unconstitutional? Do you have authority for this or just what you hope is the case?
 
flynnibus

flynnibus

Premium Member
Club Cooloholic said:
Oh, I thought it was a question that was pretty basic without any hyperbole but apparently wasn't simple enough.
Click to expand...

Thd point id its TOO simple. Life isn’t that b&w and uniform … but i see you like your own sauce so you barreled right through the warning signs.

Club Cooloholic said:
BTW the cliff's notes answer is you don't want arbitration if you are the plaintiff, in this case and pretty much the majority of suits.
Click to expand...

Unless you are the party that can’t afford to wait years, or bankroll against a megacorp, or have a clear case. Sure.. stick with the broad strokes you’re running with. The lawyers will love to keep the clock running to satisfy you.
 
EricsBiscuit

EricsBiscuit

Well-Known Member
The agreement with D+ is called a “contract of adhesion,” which is basically a contract drafted by one side with little if any input from the other. A good lawyer should hopefully be able to persuade an even somewhat sympathetic judge that the arbitration clause is unconscionable and thus unenforceable. That being said, a contract is a contract and it’s up to her attorneys to show why it should not be enforced.
 
Club Cooloholic

Club Cooloholic

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
flynnibus said:
Unless you are the party that can’t afford to wait years, or bankroll against a megacorp, or have a clear case. Sure.. stick with the broad strokes you’re running with. The lawyers will love to keep the clock running to satisfy you.
Click to expand...
Learn what the word "majority" means. It is obvious you have no legal background.
I doubt the plaintiff has had to pay his lawyer anything so far.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom