848
US couple blocked from suing Uber after crash say daughter agreed to Uber Eats terms
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
848 points (99.4% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
9879 readers
1462 users here now
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article
--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
For sure benefit of those that haven't seen the LegalEagle video, why was Disney likely to be released from the suit?
Because Disney didn't own the restaurant, it was a private restaurant renting a building in a shopping center owned by Disney
Disney was just the landlord in this situation, and so they honestly had nothing to do with it
The reason why literally any motion to dismiss would have likely been successful on the merits is because the only way, literally the one and only way the plaintiff was able to include disney in the lawsuit is because disney owns the land that was leased to the completely separate and not-affiliated-in-any-way-to-disney Irish Pub restaurant. The plaintiff argued that because there were pictures of disney owned lands for lease on their site and some of those pictures showed current lessees, ie some included the Irish Pub restaurant, he argued that they were also liable.
But if the connection to Disney was so remote and tenuous, why include them at all? Simple. Why sue a poorly managed restaurant that will likely collapse under the fairest fiduciary breeze leaving very little remuneration for you, when Disney's pockets are vastly deeper? Now, again, fuck disney forever, so I could care less that someone tried to take a bite out of disney in an unscrupulous way. But if you're going to do some shady shit to a corporation known for shady shit doings in an economy that encourages the most shady shit under a system that cultivates new ways of doing shit more shadily, then you have to expect them to fight less than fair.
I don't want to speak ill of the dead, so I'll assume that the deceased had no idea what was happening and instead speak ill of the living - in this case, her complete, utter, totally useless fucking husband. A moron of the highest degree who took his anaphalactically compromised partner with a known and fatal sensitivity to nuts... TO AN IRISH FUCKING PUB RESTAURANT!!!! After the restaurant had demonstrated multiple times that things were not in order, they continued to dine. Assuming that these things (none of these as of a week ago at least have been denied by the plaintiff) are true, I honestly think the guy should be investigated for manslaughter.
So, you can understand why seeing people cry alligator tears over the poor innocent village idiot whose incompetence has now cost someone their life is pretty fucking sad to see. I mean, the constant and incessant misplaced vitriol toward Disney while they prepare to settle with a guy they owe nothing to is kind of making disney out to be the good guy - and that is the true travesty IMO.
Disney is obviously just obfuscating their liability by running the restaurant as a separate entity. The restaurant can't operate without following Disney's rules. By all intents and purposes the restaurant is controlled by Disney and Disney either knew or should have known that the restaurant was putting people at risk.
Your uninformed conjecture is not fact or truth.
Show me the lease agreement that says I'm wrong. I guarantee it's much different than a standard commercial lease with more stringent requirements. If Disney is making specific requirements then they have a duty to enforce them.
I appreciate your concerns, but truly: I owe you nothing. It takes very little integrity to make an uninformed allegation and then sit back with a smug look and a mug full of selfrighteousness decrying "prove me wrong".
Why don't you prove Legal Eagle wrong? It would without a doubt be more fruitful because I'm not entertaining it.
Then why did they attempt to invoke the terms of an unrelated service rather than having the case dismissed outright? Makes no sense.
Obviously I can't possibly speak as to why they chose to do what they did. But I would assume that making a motion to dismiss due to the fact that arbitration has already been agreed to (seemingly unrelated from your perspective but from a legal perspective is really the only substantive aspect, so wildly related) is far less scandalous than making a motion to dismiss with no recourse for the plaintiff at all and would be far more damaging to their reputation.
And that DOES make sense.
Right, but if they're not affiliated with the restaurant, then the restaurant doesn't fall under their tos, because they don't own it.
The restaurant isn't suing them, ding dong. The guy who consented to an arbitration agreement is. Jesus fuck, it is okay to be wrong. I know it sucks. It sucks even more to imagine that Disney might be doing something remotely respectable and have to admit that. But it's okay. I'm wrong all the time. I face it, accept it, learn from it, and move on.
When you are ready to move on, go for it.
So they're doing to arbitrate a case on behalf of the store? Makes no sense to think it applies to their arbitration agreement.
Thanks for taking the time to write that up!
That all makes sense - though unless there's info in missing, I'd argue the woman should have been responsible for managing her own allergies rather than her husband, but that's beside the point, and I understand your position on speaking ill of the dead.
Whatever the case, it does certainly seem like the truth was steamrolled by a good story - though I do think the waiver arguments underpinning that side of the case will wind up getting pressure tested in pretty short order.
Thanks again.
I don't disagree, but I believe there was a communication barrier for her. I could be wrong and don't remember right now, but I believe she did not know English.
Possibly. Disney withdrew their motion after the PR hit them, and are likely negotiating a settlement. But other cases may change the way arbitration agreements and contract law are handled.
ALSO
I just walzed past your appreciation and I should have acknowledged it. I am neurodivergent and can be abrasive and I try to be relatable but sometimes miss the mark.
And I work in an extremely remote location with thousands of employees and they are nearly all conservatives, which is fine. But the most insincere of them still thinks "Alex Jones was right" about some things. Everyone is a trumper. So there is a degree of rejection of reality and uninformed conjecture in everyone that I know. So being honest, truthful, and humble are so important to me. I hear all day every day about The LEFT™ . So I think it behooves people that conservatives would call leftist to make sure they are not spreading their own version of misinformation.