Wrongful Death Lawsuit and Disney's Scary Attempt

[peter11435]

There weren’t trials in other cases where Disney settled.

If there is information that the public doesn’t have - by all means maybe it needs to go to court. I can only comment on the information I know so far.

In those cases Disney knew their side of the story and knew what might come out in a trial. Disney doesn’t have that luxury here. They would be settling someone else’s case.

Your commenting is essentially you forming an opinion after only hearing the plaintiffs side of the story. The only information the public has is what the plaintiff has accused.

 

[mkt]

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Your commenting is essentially you forming an opinion after only hearing the plaintiffs side of the story. The only information the public has is what the plaintiff has accused.

Correct - if more information comes out in the trial my opinion may change. That is indeed how thoughts work. Haha

 

[flynnibus]

Maybe it would be helpful for some to know what Disney responded to the complaint in terms of their defenses...

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
WDPR asserts the following affirmative defenses to Plaintiff’s Complaint.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because WDPR was not in possession or control of the premises, which was leased to Great Irish Pubs Florida, Inc. at the time of the incident.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because WDPR had no notice or knowledge, actual or otherwise, of the alleged dangerous conditions existing on the leased premises at the time of the incident.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because any alleged act or representation of WDPR, or failure to act by it, was not the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s alleged damages.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because Plaintiff has not incurred any compensable damages based on any acts or omissions by WDPR and any alleged damages are speculative and cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because Plaintiff is not entitled to the damages alleged under the Florida Wrongful Death Act, §§ 768.16-768.26, Fla. Stat.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part to the extent that Plaintiff’s injuries, if any, are the result of unforeseeable, independent, intervening, and/or superseding causes that broke thecausal chain between WDPR’s alleged negligence and Plaintiff’s purported damages.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because Plaintiff failed to mitigate or avoid the damages alleged and failed to take all reasonable measures and precautions necessary toprevent and/or minimize them.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because the injuries and damages allegedwere caused or contributed to by the negligence of third parties and any damages awarded must be proportionately reduced based on such parties’ percentage of fault under section 768.81, FloridaStatutes, and Fabre v. Marin, 623 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1993).

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because Plaintiff’s comparative negligencewas the legal cause of the subject incident and contributed to or caused the injuries and damagesalleged, and any damages awarded must be proportionately reduced based on Plaintiff’s percentage of fault under section 768.81, Florida Statutes, and Fabre v. Marin, 623 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1993).

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
WDPR is entitled to a set off for any payments received by Plaintiff from any third parties, collateral sources, or settlement payments pursuant to sections 46.015, 768.041, and 768.76,Florida Statutes, and Florida common law.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because WDPR is not directly or in directly liable to Plaintiff for the actions of any third parties or individuals under any theories of agency, apparent agency, vicarious liability, alter ego, or any other theory of imputed or indirect liability.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because WDPR did not control Great Irish Pubs Florida, Inc. or its business operations within the leased premises on the date of the incident.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because WDPR did not authorize Great Irish Pubs Florida, Inc. to act on WDPR’s behalf, including on the date of the incident.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because WDPR did not make any representations alleged in the Complaint to Plaintiff regarding Great Irish Pubs Florida, Inc. and therefore Plaintiff could not rely on such representations or change positions based on them.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part to the extent the alleged representations were made online through www.disneyworld.disney.go.com, which expressly disclaims liability for any statements or representations.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are subject in whole or in part to binding arbitration to the extent the alleged representations were made online through www.disneyworld.disney.go.com and therefore governed by the Terms of Use

 

[peter11435]

Correct - if more information comes out in the trial my opinion may change. That is indeed how thoughts work. Haha

Yes. And you just stated why they shouldn’t just settle

 

[JoeCamel]

Maybe it would be helpful for some to know what Disney responded to the complaint in terms of their defenses...

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
WDPR asserts the following affirmative defenses to Plaintiff’s Complaint.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because WDPR was not in possession or control of the premises, which was leased to Great Irish Pubs Florida, Inc. at the time of the incident.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because WDPR had no notice or knowledge, actual or otherwise, of the alleged dangerous conditions existing on the leased premises at the time of the incident.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because any alleged act or representation of WDPR, or failure to act by it, was not the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s alleged damages.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because Plaintiff has not incurred any compensable damages based on any acts or omissions by WDPR and any alleged damages are speculative and cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because Plaintiff is not entitled to the damages alleged under the Florida Wrongful Death Act, §§ 768.16-768.26, Fla. Stat.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part to the extent that Plaintiff’s injuries, if any, are the result of unforeseeable, independent, intervening, and/or superseding causes that broke thecausal chain between WDPR’s alleged negligence and Plaintiff’s purported damages.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because Plaintiff failed to mitigate or avoid the damages alleged and failed to take all reasonable measures and precautions necessary toprevent and/or minimize them.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because the injuries and damages allegedwere caused or contributed to by the negligence of third parties and any damages awarded must be proportionately reduced based on such parties’ percentage of fault under section 768.81, FloridaStatutes, and Fabre v. Marin, 623 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1993).

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because Plaintiff’s comparative negligencewas the legal cause of the subject incident and contributed to or caused the injuries and damagesalleged, and any damages awarded must be proportionately reduced based on Plaintiff’s percentage of fault under section 768.81, Florida Statutes, and Fabre v. Marin, 623 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1993).

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
WDPR is entitled to a set off for any payments received by Plaintiff from any third parties, collateral sources, or settlement payments pursuant to sections 46.015, 768.041, and 768.76,Florida Statutes, and Florida common law.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because WDPR is not directly or in directly liable to Plaintiff for the actions of any third parties or individuals under any theories of agency, apparent agency, vicarious liability, alter ego, or any other theory of imputed or indirect liability.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because WDPR did not control Great Irish Pubs Florida, Inc. or its business operations within the leased premises on the date of the incident.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because WDPR did not authorize Great Irish Pubs Florida, Inc. to act on WDPR’s behalf, including on the date of the incident.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because WDPR did not make any representations alleged in the Complaint to Plaintiff regarding Great Irish Pubs Florida, Inc. and therefore Plaintiff could not rely on such representations or change positions based on them.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part to the extent the alleged representations were made online through www.disneyworld.disney.go.com, which expressly disclaims liability for any statements or representations.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are subject in whole or in part to binding arbitration to the extent the alleged representations were made online through www.disneyworld.disney.go.com and therefore governed by the Terms of Use

Which makes the whole arbitration kerfuffle even stranger. The focus is on the 16th and last issue rather than the 15 reasons this will be tossed that came before is a weird way to farm engagement.
I wonder if someone was an Evelyn Wood graduate and skipped right to the last line.......

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Yes. And you just stated why they shouldn’t just settle

so what is your opinion? They have handled this correctly so far?

 

[Vacationeer]

My opinion is they should’ve left off #16

 

[celluloid]

Without a trial how can you say for certain there was negligence…

Well, I have yet to see Disney deny that there was not the material in the dishes served that could have killed her.

And I have yet to see a denial that the Cast Member (third party or not) said and confirmed multiple times that it was safe from the things she did not want in her order. Has that been disputed somewhere?

You would think that would be somewhere other than getting around it with some at your own inherent risk wording on Disney's streaming service or park tickets.

 

[peter11435]

Well, I have yet to see Disney deny that there was not the material in the dishes served that could have killed her.

And I have yet to see a denial that the Cast Member (third party or not) said and confirmed multiple times that it was safe from the things she did not want in her order. Has that been disputed somewhere?

You would think that would be somewhere other than getting around it with some at your own inherent risk wording on Disney's streaming service or park tickets.

That’s not Disneys place to deny. Disney doesn’t own or operate the restaurant and doesn’t know what took place in the kitchen or dining room that night.

Your last paragraph demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the arbitration clause and its implementation here.

 

[JoeCamel]

Well, I have yet to see Disney deny that there was not the material in the dishes served that could have killed her.

And I have yet to see a denial that the Cast Member (third party or not) said and confirmed multiple times that it was safe from the things she did not want in her order. Has that been disputed somewhere?

You would think that would be somewhere other than getting around it with some at your own inherent risk wording on Disney's streaming service or park tickets.

Disney replied correctly that they don't run the restaurant, why would they have anything to do with what was served?
15 reasons they are not involved are posted above.

 

[Tha Realest]

Why is the Chairman of Disney’s Experiences stepping into this and making public statements? Has his empire expanded into Disney+ website operations?

 

[Tha Realest]

Maybe it would be helpful for some to know what Disney responded to the complaint in terms of their defenses...

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
WDPR asserts the following affirmative defenses to Plaintiff’s Complaint.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because WDPR was not in possession or control of the premises, which was leased to Great Irish Pubs Florida, Inc. at the time of the incident.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because WDPR had no notice or knowledge, actual or otherwise, of the alleged dangerous conditions existing on the leased premises at the time of the incident.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because any alleged act or representation of WDPR, or failure to act by it, was not the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s alleged damages.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because Plaintiff has not incurred any compensable damages based on any acts or omissions by WDPR and any alleged damages are speculative and cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because Plaintiff is not entitled to the damages alleged under the Florida Wrongful Death Act, §§ 768.16-768.26, Fla. Stat.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part to the extent that Plaintiff’s injuries, if any, are the result of unforeseeable, independent, intervening, and/or superseding causes that broke thecausal chain between WDPR’s alleged negligence and Plaintiff’s purported damages.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because Plaintiff failed to mitigate or avoid the damages alleged and failed to take all reasonable measures and precautions necessary toprevent and/or minimize them.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because the injuries and damages allegedwere caused or contributed to by the negligence of third parties and any damages awarded must be proportionately reduced based on such parties’ percentage of fault under section 768.81, FloridaStatutes, and Fabre v. Marin, 623 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1993).

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because Plaintiff’s comparative negligencewas the legal cause of the subject incident and contributed to or caused the injuries and damagesalleged, and any damages awarded must be proportionately reduced based on Plaintiff’s percentage of fault under section 768.81, Florida Statutes, and Fabre v. Marin, 623 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1993).

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
WDPR is entitled to a set off for any payments received by Plaintiff from any third parties, collateral sources, or settlement payments pursuant to sections 46.015, 768.041, and 768.76,Florida Statutes, and Florida common law.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because WDPR is not directly or in directly liable to Plaintiff for the actions of any third parties or individuals under any theories of agency, apparent agency, vicarious liability, alter ego, or any other theory of imputed or indirect liability.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because WDPR did not control Great Irish Pubs Florida, Inc. or its business operations within the leased premises on the date of the incident.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because WDPR did not authorize Great Irish Pubs Florida, Inc. to act on WDPR’s behalf, including on the date of the incident.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because WDPR did not make any representations alleged in the Complaint to Plaintiff regarding Great Irish Pubs Florida, Inc. and therefore Plaintiff could not rely on such representations or change positions based on them.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part to the extent the alleged representations were made online through www.disneyworld.disney.go.com, which expressly disclaims liability for any statements or representations.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are subject in whole or in part to binding arbitration to the extent the alleged representations were made online through www.disneyworld.disney.go.com and therefore governed by the Terms of Use

For those of you who TLDR, Disney did not waive this arbitration defense.

 

[mkt]

Well, I have yet to see Disney deny that there was not the material in the dishes served that could have killed her.

And I have yet to see a denial that the Cast Member (third party or not) said and confirmed multiple times that it was safe from the things she did not want in her order. Has that been disputed somewhere?

You would think that would be somewhere other than getting around it with some at your own inherent risk wording on Disney's streaming service or park tickets.

Tell me about it. I'm still waiting for Simon Malls to pay up when I sued them from the explosive diarrhea that the Sarku Japan in the food court gave me.

/s

 

[celluloid]

Disney replied correctly that they don't run the restaurant, why would they have anything to do with what was served?
15 reasons they are not involved are posted above.

Whose property is it on? When it is on your property you standby the training when a guest asks does thus have this within it? Itnis deadly to me.
There is some culpability.

If it was them not involved. They would not need to go to terms of service.

 

[JoeCamel]

Whose property is it on? When itnis on your property you standby the training.

If it was them not involved. They would not need to go to terms of service.

Nope and nope
Does not work that way, did you bother to read the 15 reasons?

 

[peter11435]

Whose property is it on? When itnis on your property you standby the training.

If it was them not involved. They would not need to go to terms of service.

What are you even talking about?

 

[celluloid]

That’s not Disneys place to deny. Disney doesn’t own or operate the restaurant and doesn’t know what took place in the kitchen or dining room that night.

Your last paragraph demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the arbitration clause and its implementation here.

Exactly. If it can't be denied, then it can't be so quickly confirmed thst theu had terms of service risk as an excuse of denial of any blame. Hence, arbitration.
If it was a profound misunderstanding by anyone. It would not need such arbitration involved.

What are you even talking about?

Culpability.

 

[Chi84]

What are you even talking about?

Exactly. If it can't be denied, then it can't be so quickly confirmed thst theu had terms of service risk as an excuse of denial of any blame. Hence, arbitration.
If it was a profound misunderstanding by anyone. It would not need such arbitration involved.

Culpability.

What is it you don’t understand?

 

[peter11435]

Exactly. If it can't be denied, then it can't be so quickly confirmed thst theu had terms of service risk as an excuse of denial of any blame. Hence, arbitration.
If it was a profound misunderstanding by anyone. It would not need such arbitration involved.

Culpability.

You are still demonstrating a desire to ignore and or not bother to learn the actual facts of the case and legal process.