I did some digging and it seems like the family’s suit should actually be against the pub that was renting the in-park space from Disney. It’s just unfortunate that the prevalence of corporate propaganda in news media, especially in what would be a critical period for Disney to invest in damage control for their public image, makes it difficult to confidently believe one thing or the other in light of that finding.
I never cared much for Disney to begin with, so I won’t waste any more time with verification. Regardless, the suit definitely shouldn’t be dismissed on their argument of the arbitration agreement alone because it would set an awful precedent, even if the suit itself happens to be toothless. I wouldn’t put it past Disney to try to take advantage of the situation to that end (They may be hoping the suit will be dismissed for arbitration because the judge already knows the suit is pointless so that future legitimate lawsuits against them for wrongful deaths in their park can be more easily dismissed on the same grounds).
I just don’t get why Disney would go to that extent when the lawsuit should have easily been disregarded as not applicable to them. Digging up an old Disney+ membership to find some terms which could apply seems like a terrible PR move for their service.
I did some digging and it seems like the family’s suit should actually be against the pub that was renting the in-park space from Disney. It’s just unfortunate that the prevalence of corporate propaganda in news media
He is suing both Disney and the pub. The pub obviously because they were negligent and Disney because it is in Disney World. It is up to the court to decide how much liability Disney should have vs. the pub, if any.
I doubt Disney would be able to successfully argue that just because the restaurant is leasing space in Disney World that they have zero liability but that’s up to the court.
I did some digging and it seems like the family’s suit should actually be against the pub that was renting the in-park space from Disney. It’s just unfortunate that the prevalence of corporate propaganda in news media, especially in what would be a critical period for Disney to invest in damage control for their public image, makes it difficult to confidently believe one thing or the other in light of that finding.
I never cared much for Disney to begin with, so I won’t waste any more time with verification. Regardless, the suit definitely shouldn’t be dismissed on their argument of the arbitration agreement alone because it would set an awful precedent, even if the suit itself happens to be toothless. I wouldn’t put it past Disney to try to take advantage of the situation to that end (They may be hoping the suit will be dismissed for arbitration because the judge already knows the suit is pointless so that future legitimate lawsuits against them for wrongful deaths in their park can be more easily dismissed on the same grounds).
I just don’t get why Disney would go to that extent when the lawsuit should have easily been disregarded as not applicable to them. Digging up an old Disney+ membership to find some terms which could apply seems like a terrible PR move for their service.
It’s an interesting legal test case (which I hope Disney would lose) but this is certainly the wrong time to try it out.
He is suing both Disney and the pub. The pub obviously because they were negligent and Disney because it is in Disney World. It is up to the court to decide how much liability Disney should have vs. the pub, if any.
I doubt Disney would be able to successfully argue that just because the restaurant is leasing space in Disney World that they have zero liability but that’s up to the court.
Removed by mod