Weird Disney lawsuit

I didn't submit this as news as it's only half related to the parks, but I found it fascinating :

Disney World is arguing a man cannot sue it over the death of his wife because of terms he signed up to in a free trial of Disney+.

Jeffrey Piccolo filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Disney after his wife died in 2023 from a severe allergic reaction after eating at a restaurant at the theme park.

However, Disney argues its terms of use, which Mr Piccolo agreed to when creating his Disney account in 2019, means they have to settle out of court.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/...jl0ekjr0go

Original discussion from a few months ago:

https://coasterbuzz.com/For...and-disney

The Disney+ angle sure seems like a big stretch to me. Why would they go there when the account that the tickets were purchased from have the arbitration clause?

This was in Disney Springs---no theme park ticket required.

It is a lawyer's job to vigorously advocate for their client, and Disney is not known for taking a soft hand in the courts. You don't win the argument you never make, but making stupid arguments comes at a cost.

Regardless of the enforceability of the agreement, there's an awful lot of precedent that "we're not at fault for anything" agreements don't hold. It's also insane that practically every contract has an arbitration clause now, and if you're not looking for it (and an opt-out clause), you'll probably be bound by it. We've seen that in our neighborhood with owners wanting to sue the builder. It has been in purchase agreements for my cars, too (which I opted out of via postal mail).

Brian Noble:

but making stupid arguments comes at a cost.

I would agree. And if this was at Disney Springs where indeed no ticket is required then that argument falls apart as well.

I agree that you cannot win if you don't argue the case, but basing your argument on these two points seem to be silly.

Those with deep pockets loathe being in front of juries. Especially with sympathetic plaintiffs sitting at the other table. Disney is looking to do whatever it can to keep the case away from a jury. Bench trial or arbitration would be much preferred.

Poor guy is probably racked with grief. I have to carry an Epi-pen with me at all times. I've had to use it twice (years ago) due to "cross contamination." Very scary to have to use that, and scary for others around. It's a terrible/traumatic way to die. It's seconds to can't breath/throat closed.

Allergies suck. For those of you that just get runny nose/eyes, I'd trade you any day.

A bit different, but this reminds me of a "venue provision" that my old park used (fairly successfully) when defending litigation.

The basic premise was when someone purchased an admission ticket, it was clearly stated in several places (including being printed on each ticket) that any litigation would have to be filed and heard in a local court in our local county.

Why would this matter? We had a very strong and positive business reputation with our local community. And jury pools drew from our local community, who were very supportive of my old parks' operation. Our community makeup is also very conservative politically, which traditionally is more critical toward high jury awards.

When motions were filed by plaintiffs' counsel to move the jurisdiction to another county, where the jury pool might be more inclined to be sympathetic and award more favorably, in almost every case the motion was denied. Plus, when you can defend litigation locally, it drastically reduces legal expenses and logistics with travel time, taking depositions, etc. It's a "home field advantage" in a legal sense.

Interesting stipulation that I know more and more entertainment venues are including with their risk management defense strategy.

Ars Technica has a solid article on this.

My attorney thinks that Disney is going to come up short with this argument since buying food at Disney Springs has little relation to buying a Disney+ account.

But, if it works, I'm going to see if he can write language into our fee schedule so that if you choose to buy any type of service from us, or pull any type of building permit, you waive your right to a court trial for trip and falls and other injuries that occur on City property.

I don't understand why Disney is responsible for this. To my understanding, the Irish restaurant at Disney Springs is not owned or operated by Disney.

In cases like this, you sue everyone connected to it. Disney owns the property the restaurant sits on (I'm assuming).

I haven't thoroughly read the entire article linked above, but as far as the Disney+ angle goes: could it be that the same login/account is used for the WDW app and Disney+ and the terms are set from there? I only ask because I logged onto my Disney+ account this week and I know I used the same general Disney login I use for travel planning. I know I'm probably reaching since the article didn't seem to point to that.

You typically sue everyone and anyone who could possibly be liable even in a small part or with a tenuous connections. Particularly if they are solvent. Easier to drop parties as the case proceeds versus having to join them later.

Linked article isn't very helpful in that it just restates arguments by the parties (and the vast majority of what is stated in it are from plaintiff's counsel). If you want to know who should win on the merits its typically not helpful to look at what either party included in its pleadings or in their arguments in court (they both are typically equally convinced their side should win). Typically in that type of article, writer would cite an attorney who is not involved with the case at issue but has expertise in the type of case in the applicable jurisdiction.

If anything, this make me want to cancel my D + subscription.

Weird flex by the company.

Disney waives right to arbitration. Allowing case to move forward in court.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08...index.html

Disney abandoned *their claim of* a right to arbitration. Obviously because they were getting a ton of negative publicity, but possibly because they want to assert that right in other, lower-profile cases and don't want it getting hammered down in a court of law.

I can't imagine that it actually goes to trial. Unless they really want to draw a line in the sand on this kind of situation, they'll settle.

No, I don't think it will go to trial, but a ruling as to whether it could go to trial, rather than arbitration, would precede any trial itself. Disney avoids that.

I can't imagine Disney has much liability here in any case. But who knows.

I don't either. I suspect there are some pretty clear legal firewalls between Disney and the various operating participants. If it were a Disney-owned/operated restaurant, it would be a much bigger problem, but it's not.