Wrongful Death Lawsuit and Disney's Scary Attempt

[Chi84]

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

The headlines I saw said nothing about arbitration. They said Disney was asking to have a wrongful death case “dismissed” or “tossed” based on the terms and conditions of Disney+.

You can stretch all you want to make that look accurate but it simply is not. The reporting I saw was misleading, atrocious and clearly designed to get clicks rather than provide information.

The end result can clearly be seen in many of the posts here. People did not understand until the matter was explained. And some refuse to understand.

They could have said “Disney tries to force arbitration of a wrongful death suit based on the terms of a Disney+ account” or some such thing. But they didn’t.

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

Except that wasn’t their argument

I'm an attorney. I read the pleadings. It was exactly what they argued.

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

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.

If fatalities are happening in the parks so frequently that this becomes a problem then Disney has WAAAAYYYY BIGGER PROBLEMS than not being able to move these cases to arbitration. How about, I don't know, in the rare circumstance where Disney accidentally kills someone, they settle the case instead of trying a ridiculous maneuver to avoid liability by forcing arbitration on the grieving survivors of someone who just died in a Disney park.

 

[Club Cooloholic]

The headlines I saw said nothing about arbitration. They said Disney was asking to have a wrongful death case “dismissed” or “tossed” based on the terms and conditions of Disney+.

You can stretch all you want to make that look accurate but it simply is not. The reporting I saw was misleading, atrocious and clearly designed to get clicks rather than provide information.

The end result can clearly be seen in many of the posts here. People did not understand until the matter was explained. And some refuse to understand.

They could have said “Disney tries to force arbitration of a wrongful death suit based on the terms of a Disney+ account” or some such thing. But they didn’t.

But they were asking for it to be thrown out of court. You seem to be trying you best to over examine it in a way that it would not be interpreted as that, even though that is exactly what it was.

 

[peter11435]

I'm an attorney. I read the pleadings. It was exactly what they argued.

No it wasn’t

 

[Chi84]

But they were asking for it to be thrown out of court. You seem to be trying you best to over examine it in a way that it would not be interpreted as that, even though that is exactly what it was.

What I'm saying is that the common understanding of "thrown out of court" means the lawsuit is no more and the plaintiff cannot recover. Very few people would interpret "tossed" or "thrown out of court" to mean forced into arbitration. The headlines could have referred to arbitration but chose to be misleading instead.

 

[celluloid]

If fatalities are happening in the parks so frequently that this becomes a problem then Disney has WAAAAYYYY BIGGER PROBLEMS than not being able to move these cases to arbitration. How about, I don't know, in the rare circumstance where Disney accidentally kills someone, they settle the case instead of trying a ridiculous maneuver to avoid liability by forcing arbitration on the grieving survivors of someone who just died in a Disney park.

Thank you. No sarcasm. This brings it back to what it really is from the start of this.
They wanted it barred in whole or in part and that was an ugly thing to include for their case. That likely won't hold much weight with the law anyway.
This is what it all comes down to. There were a million ways to settle other than giving PR a headache.

Hello Lawyer, I am in the PR world. When these worlds overlap it is not often good.

 

[TalkToEthan]

the common understanding of "thrown out of court" means the lawsuit is no more and the plaintiff cannot recover.

Yes, yes indeed

 

[Lilofan]

If fatalities are happening in the parks so frequently that this becomes a problem then Disney has WAAAAYYYY BIGGER PROBLEMS than not being able to move these cases to arbitration. How about, I don't know, in the rare circumstance where Disney accidentally kills someone, they settle the case instead of trying a ridiculous maneuver to avoid liability by forcing arbitration on the grieving survivors of someone who just died in a Disney park.

Settling would be a wise move. Not death related but Eisner and team learned the hard way. Disney decided to fight and go to court in 2000 when two men claimed that Disney stole their idea of the Wide World of Sports Complex at WDW. The plaintiffs asked for $1.4B. Even with Eisner taking the stand to testify , the jury awarded the two men $240M.

 

[easyrowrdw]

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.

I know a company that tried something like this. They put forth all manner of legal arguments as to why they weren't liable for something bad that happened as a result of their employee's actions. After close to 10 years of losing in court and a lot of negative publicity, they settled the case.

I'm not saying Disney is liable, but their approach with the arbitration stuff here was awful.

 

[Club Cooloholic]

What I'm saying is that the common understanding of "thrown out of court" means the lawsuit is no more and the plaintiff cannot recover. Very few people would interpret "tossed" or "thrown out of court" to mean forced into arbitration. The headlines could have referred to arbitration but chose to be misleading instead.

Yes, but you even people like you seemed to no really grasp what arbitration was(just another way to handle it) and even looking for the positives for people bringing a complain. It has to be explained to you and the other chuckling folks just how negatively this would impact a plaintiff, and future plaintiffs. Arbitration is by definition "out of court".

Would the headline, "Disney attempts to end all customer court litigation suits against them", been a less sensational headline and more to your liking?

 

[Chi84]

Yes, but you even people like you seemed to no really grasp what arbitration was(just another way to handle it) and even looking for the positives for people bringing a complain. It has to be explained to you and the other chuckling folks just how negatively this would impact a plaintiff, and future plaintiffs. Arbitration is by definition "out of court".

Would the headlin, "Disney attempts to end all customer court litigation suits against them", been a less sensational headline and more to your liking?

I do have a full grasp of arbitration and all its implications. I'm speaking from my own experience and judgment as to what is common and reasonable. Yours is different so it doesn't seem we will agree and that's perfectly fine.

I don't know what you mean by "you and the other chuckling folks," but it doesn't seem to be either complimentary or warranted.

 

[Ayla]

Thank you. No sarcasm. This brings it back to what it really is from the start of this.
They wanted it barred in whole or in part and that was an ugly thing to include for their case. That likely won't hold much weight with the law anyway.
This is what it all comes down to. There were a million ways to settle other than giving PR a headache.

Hello Lawyer, I am in the PR world. When these worlds overlap it is not often good.

A few days ago you said you were a Lit teacher.

 

[Tigger&Pooh]

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

Essentially, the court would send it to arbitration, arbitration meetings would occur and an agreement is reached, then a short court proceeding to close the case that is still technically open with the court. To "throw out the case" means to vacate it entirely, typically as having no merits.

Arbitration is done without all the formalities of a court trial, the long drawn-out timeline, etc. My layman's understanding is that requesting the case be sent to arbitration would have "stayed" or essentially "paused" the court proceedings while the 2 parties (or I guess 3 parties in this situation) tried to hammer out an acceptable agreement. If the parties were unable to reach an agreement in arbitration -- or if one party did not feel the arbitration was done fairly -- they can still ask the court to review and either confirm or vacation the arbitration agreement.

 

[Ayla]

Yes, but you even people like you seemed to no really grasp what arbitration was(just another way to handle it) and even looking for the positives for people bringing a complain. It has to be explained to you and the other chuckling folks just how negatively this would impact a plaintiff, and future plaintiffs. Arbitration is by definition "out of court".

Would the headlin, "Disney attempts to end all customer court litigation suits against them", been a less sensational headline and more to your liking?

Are you seriously mansplaining to a lawyer?

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

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.

One note on the streaming aspect, as pointed out in a comment on Reddit from someone identifying themselves as a lawyer.

This may have been highlighted because it shows that the individual signed up for Disney+ and bought park tickets via Disney's website, showing they had multiple opportunities to read the terms.

The plaintiff also cited the allergy free option for the restaurant on the website. The same website that noted the arbitration clause.

They also note it shouldn't really matter if they read the terms or not because it has been previously ruled that it's not a realistic expectation of consumers.

They also echoed the sentiment that this piece was leaked to the media to put pressure on Disney, despite the fact that the case is much more complex in its' entirety.

 

[TalkToEthan]

I don't know what you mean by "you and the other chuckling folks," but it doesn't seem to be either complimentary or warranted.

“”I’ve been called a lotta things Mr but I ain’t never been called ‘chuckling’………if I knew what in the hll that meant I’d might be inclined to take offense””

 

[TalkToEthan]

The plaintiff also cited the allergy free option for the restaurant on the website. The same website that noted the arbitration clause.

Oh I’m sure he did ……….even if he and or wife actually never saw it on Disney’s web.

The proximity on this thing is tenuous at best and complainant is looking to claim wife relied on that Disney published info(even **if** she never read it there).

 

[Club Cooloholic]

Are you seriously mansplaining to a lawyer?

Have you and I even conversed in this forum? Or are you saying Chi is a lawyer?

 

[Bullseye1967]

Have you and I even conversed in this forum? Or are you saying Chi is a lawyer?

Yes she is a lawyer.