Wrongful Death Lawsuit and Disney's Scary Attempt

[celluloid]

What is it you don’t understand?

Why brand advocacy, even when understood and recognized, would still be so strong that the company said people are passionate about can't imagine the company being at all involved in part, even in infinitesimal in association to the incident.

 

[Chi84]

Why brand advocacy, even when understood and recognized, would still be so strong that the company said people are passionate about can't imagine the company being at all involved in part, even in infinitesimal in association to the incident.

I was asking @peter11435. Your grasp of the situation is clear.

 

[celluloid]

Hey, speaking of terms of service and agreement readings: Laughing emoji type responses for disagreement, such as yours without any content or discussion, are against this websites forum rules.

 

[celluloid]

Nah, for being ignorant and repetitive posting of whack ideas

It's not a whack idea. It went to arbitration for a reason. Disney has potential of some culpability. What level is legally decided is a guess until. And it is always possible at this point. Disagreeing is fine.
It does not make a company evil or a disaster to have some fault or responsibility to this.

Repetitive posting? My posts were quoted with questions for them. I have been responding.
Responses of others calling for TROLL tagging and laugh emoji, would surely fit the definition of internet troll.

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

Why, they did nothing wrong?

Whether they have some liability is up in the air. Everyone posting on this forum like it’s incredibly clear-cut makes for some good armchair lawyering, but also ignores the website angle of this, and the fact that they had all that information about the restaurant being allergy friendly, having an allergy menu, etc. etc. Probably more likely than not that they’re not liable if the thing went to trial I guess, but again, it’s not going to, they’re going to settle.

 

[peter11435]

Whether they have some liability is up in the air. Everyone posting on this forum like it’s incredibly clear-cut makes for some good armchair lawyering, but also ignores the website angle of this, and the fact that they had all that information about the restaurant being allergy friendly, having an allergy menu, etc. etc. Probably more likely than not that they’re not liable if the thing went to trial I guess, but again, it’s not going to, they’re going to settle.

And the fact that you just explained how Disney’s liability was based on the website is why Disneys website terms of service came into play.

 

[mkt]

Simon Mall reference reminds me to reminds me to remind you that you should check your mailbox for your AARP latest.

Your weak stomach for a western take on japanese food does not equate to people on Disney property assuring you your ordered dish will not kill you from the thing you were concerned with killing you.

I'm a millennial. Still several years away from AARP.

But what about in Simon's website where they guaranteed me a healthy meal?

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

And the fact that you just explained how Disney’s liability was based on the website is why Disneys website terms of service came into play.

Ok? That doesn’t make the argument they made any less stupid. The idea that signing up for a one month free trial of D+ five years earlier, somehow waives everyone’s right to have their day in court in all cases in perpetuity is ludicrous on its face. It was a stupid argument, and it was also really bad PR. You know how I know that I’m right that it was a stupid argument and bad PR? The fact that Disney withdrew it.

 

[peter11435]

Ok? That doesn’t make the argument they made any less stupid. The idea that signing up for a one month free trial of D+ five years earlier, somehow waives everyone’s right to have their day in court in all cases in perpetuity is ludicrous on its face. It was a stupid argument, and it was also really bad PR. You know how I know that I’m right that it was a stupid argument and bad PR? The fact that Disney withdrew it.

Except that wasn’t their argument

 

[Mark Dunne]

Why on earth Disney had to go ahead and say in not so many words ''if you signed up for D+ , your up a certain creek without a certain paddle'' lord knows the family are going through the toughest time as it is, doesn't sound like good PR to me. i was shocked when my son heard of this and told me, it was even on BBC news page last night, not the kind of headlines this company needs . hope they do the right thing .

 

[peter11435]

Why on earth Disney had to go ahead and say in not so many words ''if you signed up for D+ , your up a certain creek without a certain paddle'' lord knows the family are going through the toughest time as it is, doesn't sound like good PR to me. i was shocked when my son heard of this and told me, it was even on BBC news page last night, not the kind of headlines this company needs . hope they do the right thing .

Except that’s not that they said

 

[Club Cooloholic]

Ok? That doesn’t make the argument they made any less stupid. The idea that signing up for a one month free trial of D+ five years earlier, somehow waives everyone’s right to have their day in court in all cases in perpetuity is ludicrous on its face. It was a stupid argument, and it was also really bad PR. You know how I know that I’m right that it was a stupid argument and bad PR? The fact that Disney withdrew it.

Many here also thought the press was overblowing this story, I think the press handled it exactly they should and otherwise this thing might have gone to arbitration and set a horrible precedent

 

[peter11435]

Many here also thought the press was overblowing this story, I think the press handled it exactly they should and otherwise this thing might have gone to arbitration and set a horrible precedent

It’s not that the story was overblown by the press. It’s that they misrepresented and misreported one aspect of the case simply for clicks and views. And many of you can’t see past that to understand the bigger picture and what was really argued.

 

[Club Cooloholic]

It’s not that the story was overblown by the press. It’s that they misrepresented and misreported one aspect of the case simply for clicks and views. And many of you can’t see past that to understand the bigger picture and what was really argued.

Please explain what part was misrepresented? What I saw in most articles was a corporation attempting to compel the judge to throw out a case against them and move it to arbitration by linking a person's agreement to terms of use for a streaming service . If this had been allowed, it would basically mean any future litigants with personal injury cases (whether substantiated or not) would have only arbitration as their option to seek compensation from Disney.

 

[Lilofan]

It’s not that the story was overblown by the press. It’s that they misrepresented and misreported one aspect of the case simply for clicks and views. And many of you can’t see past that to understand the bigger picture and what was really argued.

I can't imagine how many " you did for them you need to do it for me " if a fatality happens in the parks and the family of the deceased does not want to go through arbitration due to terms they agreed to.

 

[peter11435]

Please explain what part was misrepresented? What I saw in most articles was a corporation attempting to compel the judge to throw out a case against them and move it to arbitration by linking a person's agreement to terms of use for a streaming service . If this had been allowed, it would basically mean any future litigants with personal injury cases (whether substantiated or not) would have only arbitration as their option to seek compensation from Disney.

You explained your problem in your second sentence. You’re basing your opinion on articles. The court documents are public record and you can read them for yourself. It has also been explained in this thread.

I’ll start by correcting your assertion that they were trying to compel the judge to throw out the case. That’s not at all what they asked for.

And no, this would not have forced future personal injury claims to arbitration.

 

[flynnibus]

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.

No No No

It's clear you're not reading any of the actual material and are going off someone's cliff notes.

 

[Club Cooloholic]

You explained your problem in your second sentence. You’re basing your opinion on articles. The court documents are public record and you can read them for yourself. It has also been explained in this thread.

I’ll start by correcting your assertion that they were trying to compel the judge to throw out the case. That’s not at all what they asked for.

And no, this would not have forced future personal injury claims to arbitration.

Oh they didn't want the case moved to arbitration (that is throwing the case out, of the court)?

Wait do some of you not know arbitration is an out of court resolution?

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

I can't imagine how many " you did for them you need to do it for me " if a fatality happens in the parks and the family of the deceased does not want to go through arbitration due to terms they agreed to.

Fatality on property is extremely rare thankfully.

 

[flynnibus]

It’s not that the story was overblown by the press. It’s that they misrepresented and misreported one aspect of the case simply for clicks and views. And many of you can’t see past that to understand the bigger picture and what was really argued.

The gist is the same, even if the truth of the matter required two additional steps. Disney was trying to hold the customer to an arbitration clause from a D+ signup- Truth. How that sign-up mapped to a Dining experience (through the use of MDE and a embedded terms of service link) required several more bridges... because the other truth was that the MDE experience did not itself include arbitration clauses.

The reporting on all of it was atrocious... but what you're splitting hairs over now is pointless. Disney didn't have a direct agreement to an arbitration clause for MDE when the user used MDE to view the menus and buy tickets. They were in fact arguing the D+ enrollment was significant and binding to the experience with MDE and the resulting on-property experience.