People keep discussing weather Disney should be part of the suit or not, which is neither here nor there. Disney's response to the suit and attempt at getting it thrown out based on a website agreement is the real story. I agree with @Rhinocerous , it absolutely could have been something they were testing to set a precedent, all you need a is judge to see it their way and boom they got it. If the judge doesn't , no harm because they don't really have any liability to worry about.
I don't think you said anything wrong, imagine if the judge were to agree with them?
Saying the matter should be handled in arbitration is not the same as saying there is no liability.
Disney is bringing up the website because the plaintiff brought it up first.
WUT? A key premise is Disney doesn't believe they should be part of the suit - It's entirely relevant.
They aren’t trying to get it thrown out
Ok, put to arbitration I apologize about my phrasing.. If you were to have a loved one suffer an injury at WDW would you want it to go to arbitration automatically instead of having it decided in court with a jury?
Some of us are geocached from reading anything other than a news article.
If you don’t want something brought up, then don’t bring it up first. Again, the website was brought up by the plaintiff which is why Disney is pointing to the user agreement.
Arbitration does not mean there is no determination of liability. Disney has separate arguments for why they are not liable. Seeking to change the venue has nothing to do with determining liability. Settlements include statements of not being liable because there was no process of determining liability.
Arbitration is a different forum for trying the case. It is not the same as settling out of court.
No - but I'm also not going to get all worked up about lawyers doing lawyering. Same way that if the tables were turned, you'd be expecting your lawyer to apply all possible elements to get you the best outcome.
Oh Look condescending post from you, imagine that.
The case is 2024-CA-001616-O : PICCOLO, JEFFREY Jvs.GREAT IRISH PUBS FLORIDA INC et al.
It's a means to force a more concise, cheaper solution verse a lawsuit that would drag out for years. Of course Disney wants to exclude themselves from the suit overall.. who wouldn't? It's an ugly precedent in how they are being dragged into the event in the first place. I don't fault Disney for trying to extract themselves from it, including legal maneuvering.
Same as every other 'employee arrested...' or 'tourist dies...' etc story where people love latching onto anything Disney to get some eyeballs. Here it's a wrongful death suit so it gets a lot more clicks than someone trying to sue over tripping over the curb.
I have and why I posted what I did... you had no problem trying to shame, blame, and generalize. With more context I hope you've at least reflected on your thoughts.Oh Look condescending post from you, imagine that.
Might want to read the rest of what I posted, get back to me when you do.
Florida Courts and public policy generally favor arbitration. I’m not sure why certain posters here act like arbitration means the case is being “thrown out.”Alternative dispute resolution such as arbitration is becoming increasingly popular. Courts are slow, judges have to curry favor with political parties to get elected and the jurors are your fellow posters
I think there is more red tape in the leaps and bounds to change a lightbulb as opposed to the many long lonely hours the Disney legal team ( salaried ) has to work to represent and defend Disney. But at least the legal team can play on their days off in the parks for free!
Sounds like a lot of words to say “ I didn‘t read any of your other posts in the thread.” Thanks for confirming
