Wrongful Death Lawsuit and Disney's Scary Attempt

[Chi84]

What you say is true, sadly, a person unintentionally died due to an issue at an eatery. The position taken by the eatery in question and Disney is not sympathetic to the grieving parties. NOW, enter the attorneys, legal speak and process. Bottom line, the beneficiaries are the attorneys. The eatery in question and Disney could have taken a diplomatic / sympathetic approach rather than hard line and have a better public image plus (in the long run) less costly situation.

So if there were no lawyers, people would settle their differences in a diplomatic and sympathetic way? Interesting theory.

 

[DisneyCane]

And those attorneys paid a lot of tuition to be able to impart it to you.

That is true!

 

[Tha Realest]

I don't think Disney's unsympathetic or not, but the bad press that this "defense" has brought about seems like it was not worth it. If you Google "restaurant allergy death", this story is what you will find, and it's because the attempt to force arbitration is the main story.

I imagine Disney is involved in multiple personal injury suits that we never hear about because they either settle, the judge throws them out because there is no liability or they get litigated to the end and awarded.

The attempt to force arbitration(and no they are asking they are trying to compel it) due to signing up for a service seemingly unrelated to the case is what got the press. And rightfully so.

Yep. I hope this costs them a ton of money and touches off a losing streak on their forced arbitration clauses.

 

[Chi84]

Yep. I hope this costs them a ton of money and touches off a losing streak on their forced arbitration clauses.

It’s not “their” forced arbitration clauses. They’re everywhere these days. People just don’t read what they’re agreeing to when they accept terms and conditions.

 

[Lilofan]

What you say is true, sadly, a person unintentionally died due to an issue at an eatery. The position taken by the eatery in question and Disney is not sympathetic to the grieving parties. NOW, enter the attorneys, legal speak and process. Bottom line, the beneficiaries are the attorneys. The eatery in question and Disney could have taken a diplomatic / sympathetic approach rather than hard line and have a better public image plus (in the long run) less costly situation.

Somewhat different but related , I read a story when the 2 year old boy who lost his life snatched by the gator jaws at the waters edge at Grand Floridian beach in front of his parents while the dad tried to fight off the gator that there was a care and compassion group of cast assisting the parents for the rest of their time at WDW before the family flew back to their home state. In that type of trauma kudos to Disney cast to assist in ways possible to the family affected.

 

[Lilofan]

It’s not “their” forced arbitration clauses. They’re everywhere these days. People just don’t read what they’re agreeing to when they accept terms and conditions.

Some like me just look for the box to “ click “ in agreement.

 

[Tha Realest]

It’s not “their” forced arbitration clauses. They’re everywhere these days. People just don’t read what they’re agreeing to when they accept terms and conditions.

I don’t disagree these sorts of agreements are all over the place. Even if you’re generally in favor of the enforceability of these agreements, what’s risible to many about this situation is the notion that your spouse signing up for a free trial on a new, niche service years ago somehow limits any and all litigation options going forward on anything the company does.

 

[celluloid]

It’s not “their” forced arbitration clauses. They’re everywhere these days. People just don’t read what they’re agreeing to when they accept terms and conditions.

The law still asks that terms be reasonable. And this one is outrageous and a reach.

For example. A Carnival company is always ride at your own risk, if some extreme accident happens with damages or death, you the court will not allow the "ride at your own risk" agreement on tickets and signage to hold up to what occurred.

 

[Lilofan]

I don’t disagree these sorts of agreements are all over the place. Even if you’re generally in favor of the enforceability of these agreements, what’s risible to many about this situation is the notion that your spouse signing up for a free trial on a new, niche service years ago somehow limits any and all litigation options going forward on anything the company does.

From the get go that’s something the person signing the contract needs to understand. Unfortunately the issues arise when this is pointed out on arbitration and all of a sudden Disney is the bad guy.

 

[threvester]

Ever since the Apple terms of agreement episode on South Park I always read them.

 

[The Mom]

So if there were no lawyers, people would settle their differences in a diplomatic and sympathetic way? Interesting theory.

We should go back to the old "might makes right" way of settling differences? Which sometimes still exists in a different form, but at least we - as individuals- don't have to fight to the death over a property dispute, etc.

 

[celluloid]

The bad press this got Disney was far more costly than giving the guy 50,000 or settling for 40,000 ever would have brought them.

 

[Tha Realest]

From the get go that’s something the person signing the contract needs to understand. Unfortunately the issues arise when this is pointed out on arbitration and all of a sudden Disney is the bad guy.

So if you signed up for an X account a year or two ago, and a few years from now your auto-driving Tesla malfunctions and kills your wife and children, you think you should be forced into arbitration because of some silly T&C you agreed to by creating a long-defunct X (formerly Twitter) account?

 

[Tha Realest]

The bad press this got Disney was far more costly than giving the guy 50,000 or settling for 40,000 ever would have brought them.

I have to guess he’s demanding a lot. But I agree - you’re correct that the bad press has likely gotten people very very high up to have their attorneys call their attorneys and tell them to make this go away

 

[celluloid]

I have to guess he’s demanding a lot. But I agree - you’re correct that the bad press has likely gotten people very very high up to have their attorneys call their attorneys and tell them to make this go away

And those attorney's do not work for free either.

He was asking only for 50,000 money-wise according to the article.

 

[Lilofan]

So if you signed up for an X account a year or two ago, and a few years from now your auto-driving Tesla malfunctions and kills your wife and children, you think you should be forced into arbitration because of some silly T&C you agreed to by creating a long-defunct X (formerly Twitter) account?

You click agree signed sealed delivered. Like other posters have said some don’t even read the terms. Don’t like the terms then don’t sign up.

 

[DarkMetroid567]

And those attorney's do not work for free either.

He was asking only for 50,000 money-wise according to the article.

Nah, you’re misinterpreting, the $50,000 is a jurisdictional threshold in the state of Florida. The damages (and potential settlement) would very easily be in the millions.

That being said, that’s not what worries Disney. What worries them is a finding that they are responsible for wrongful death or setting precedent that makes it easier for them to lose such suits.

 

[Lilofan]

Nah, you’re misinterpreting, the $50,000 is a jurisdictional threshold in the state of Florida. The damages (and potential settlement) would very easily be in the millions.

That being said, that’s not what worries Disney. What worries them is a finding that they are responsible for wrongful death or setting precedent that makes it easier for them to lose such suits.

Arbitration is the way a number of companies have been and continuing to go. I’m not surprised in the least.

 

[celluloid]

Nah, you’re misinterpreting, the $50,000 is a jurisdictional threshold in the state of Florida. The damages (and potential settlement) would very easily be in the millions.

That being said, that’s not what worries Disney. What worries them is a finding that they are responsible for wrongful death or setting precedent that makes it easier for them to lose such suits.

I see. At any rate, a settlement and avoiding this loophole that is ugly to all is still far more costly in the long run.

"While no fault in this circumstance, an opportunity going forward is to ensure that our third-party training prevents such incidents from happening."

Not doing something akin to that made it a lot harder for both Lawyer's and PR teams to make this go away now.

 

[Chi84]

We should go back to the old "might makes right" way of settling differences? Which sometimes still exists in a different form, but at least we - as individuals- don't have to fight to the death over a property dispute, etc.

God forbid if you have a crazy neighbor