So you’re telling me if you had a food allergy and you go on vacation, you would still go buy groceries and make your own meals?
Yes, there’s technically a risk for food allergies whenever you go to a restaurant, but never eating out means you miss out on a lot of life events. The doctor took precautions. They did exactly what they were supposed to. Any restaurant with a sense of food safety knows how important it is to not fuck it up, and clearly Disney skipped out on the food safety training.
If I had a vehicule so fast it could literally kill me, I would never drive it around other people knowing my life was potentially in the hands of some inexperienced driver who has not the slightest concern or knowledge regarding traffic laws.
I could find plenty other analogies, but you get the point… So many mundane everyday activities are life threatening in a way, you can’t blame people for living…
Asking the waiter for problematic ingredients and insisting on how severe your allergy is more than enough caution taken. The fault is entirely on the restaurant. If a blind person was run over after a nearby pedestrian ensured them that it was safe to cross the street, would you blame the blind person for leaving their house alone?
It would cost Disney literally pocket change to compensate the widower, but instead they rather spend hundred of thousands of dollars for lawyers and legal fee to fight it.
They’re using this chance since they know they can easily dispute it to try and set precedent for terms and services being used in situations that don’t make sense.
The judge will probably slap it down and they can still say that they don’t have anything to do with the restaurant and just walk away free, but it’s worth trying cause there’s plenty pro corpo judges now a days.
You probably think you’re clever but being pedantic is just being insufferable about stuff everyone else understood from context. That doesn’t make you clever, that just shows everyone that you need to be seen as clever.
That’s what I don’t get about this. The point is either to get out of paying or at least make it very difficult. At the same time the cost to Disney as a company with all the bad press and fall out from doing this would be orders of magnitude greater than simply paying the widower compensation. Who signed off on it? The idea that a lawyer can do what ever it takes to win a case while simultaneously destroying the company they work for seems dumb as shit from a purely financial point of view.
For many parents, it’s quicker to pay $10 for Disney+ than to load up a torrenting site and download the torrents every time. As a former piece of shit bratty toddler, I can understand why many parents would rather pay.
Disney said late Wednesday that it is “deeply saddened” by the family’s loss but stressed the Irish pub is neither owned nor operated by the company. The company’s stance in the litigation doesn’t affect the plaintiff’s claims against the eatery, it added.
“We are merely defending ourselves against the plaintiff’s attorney’s attempt to include us in their lawsuit against the restaurant,” the company wrote in an emailed statement.
For some reason that word “merely” just gets right under my skin. Like they KNOW it’s peak slimy, but they are just trying to do their job, man.
…Which is to protect the company at the expense of anything else: Reason, decency, consumer rights…
Honestly, isn’t them invoking the arbitration clause a direct admission of guilt? Had they just came to court and said “we have nothing to do with it” they might’ve just gotten away with it. Like this, they literally drag themselves into the suit and say you can’t sue me. Not a good look.
The way these big firms work is they make a bunch of almost contradictory arguments and you have to show they’re all false in order to win the law suit.
So it’ll look like:
I didn’t do it.
Even if I did do it you can’t prove it was me.
Even if you can prove it was me I wouldn’t be liable.
Even if I was liable this has to be settled by arbitration.
So you have to get through arguments 4 and 3 first, to show that it’s worth the court trying to find out what happened. Then they’ll fight you tooth and nail on points 1 and 2 later.
The problem is just going to court and saying “we have nothing to do with it” is both expensive and can end up with them going to trial. If they believe they have nothing to do with the incident, this is their easiest route.
Not trying to defend a big corp like Disney (they have plenty of money and can easily cover it), but I was just involved in a suite brought against me and in the end even though it would have been an “easy win” for us, it still would have cost us more money to fight it out in court than it was to just settle. And that’s assuming the trial went our way which is never a guarantee.
No, it isn’t. It’s saying, look, we had nothing to do with this because it was outside of our reasonable control, and even if we were somehow in control of this independent entity, this is the wrong venue because they agreed to this arbitration clause.
Is that arbitration agreement reasonable? Personally, I lean towards no, but that’s mostly because arbitration is almost always in favor of the corporation. If it was truly a neutral process? Then yeah, I’d mostly support it, because it’s pretty easy for a defendant like Disney to bury any single plaintiff. (OTOH, it makes class action suits much harder.) Is it even valid, since it’s the estate that’s suing Disney, rather than her husband, and the estate didn’t exist when the tickets were bought and so couldn’t have agreed to the terms? Hard to say.
If SCOTUS sides with the corporation and if I were the binding arbitrator who had to see it afterwards, I would hit Disney with a whopper of a settlement out of pure disgust for this.
Yeah I think there’s a lot of people who aren’t getting this. It wasn’t an informed consent to danger form where the activity they knew was dangerous, and signed off on, killed them. This was a Terms of Service agreement you automatically agree to when you make a purchase. It’s supposed to govern the terms of using that purchase.
A mall owned and operated by Disney, with Disney branding everywhere, and store names heavily influenced by Disney properties, like “BB Wolf’s Sausage Co.”, and where “Guest Services” is managed by Disney, and the property rules are Disneyworld’s property rules.
That has nothing to do with whether it was actually in a park though, in which case one could argue about accepting terms based on a park ticket purchase. Since it’s not in a park, and needs no ticket, that shouldn’t apply.
Also, since you want to talk about branding, Raglan Road is a very well known street in Dublin, Ireland. It’s not really Disney-related, just Irish. Heck, looking into it a tiny bit more, the pub seems like it might even be independently owned and operated, not actually owned or operated by Disney at all. Their website doesn’t even mention Disney anywhere on it that I can find, which would lead one to assume it’s not actually Disney- related. It just happens to be located in a space operated by Disney. In which case I don’t think Disney would be liable at all anyway for an independent business, which seems a bit confusing why their lawyers wouldn’t just go that route instead, unless part of the agreement to be there is to be covered by Disney’s legal team.
If it is under the Disney umbrella, I’d bet that Disney World, Disney Springs, the Raglan Road Irish Pub, and Disney+ are all legally separate companies. They may be wholly owned by the Walt Disney Company under their umbrella, but technically separate companies. Legally, this matters a lot, even if it’s all under the Disney brand. Even if we don’t really care about that distinction as consumers.
If it is under the Disney umbrella, I’d bet that Disney World, Disney Springs, the Raglan Road Irish Pub, and Disney+ are all legally separate companies.
Probably, but is a customer expected to know that? What if you’re inside Disney World itself and you’re injured on the It’s a Small World ride, and then Disney says “oh, that’s not us, that’s owned and operated by ‘It’s A Small World LLC’”.
Part of the attraction of the whole Disney Springs area is that it’s under the Disney umbrella. As a visitor, you know that the company is going to keep everything clean, make sure that everything is up to high standards, etc. You’re probably going to pay a bit more to go to a store / restaurant there than a typical strip mall, but in exchange you get part of the Disney experience. It’s pretty reasonable to assume that that will also include restaurants that produce high quality food and that ensure that someone’s allergy needs are met.
FWIW, I don’t think the judge is going to go for it. Disney’s lawyers are the most bloodthirsty son of a bitch lawyers on Earth, but just because they make the argument doesn’t mean the court will accept it.
This is why those ToS are 71pages long. I don’t think there are many good judges out there anymore, but I hope the one that reviews this case goes absolutely ape-shit on Disney. There is a legal tradition of harsh punishments for criminals in examplar cases to set detterents to future crimes. The same needs to be done to reel in these corporations.
It’s perfectly reasonable for, say, a tattoo artist not to be liable for the medical bills, if the ink causes a hitherto unknown allergy to kick in.
It’s not reasonable to argue that a streaming service agreement covers liability for being cut in half by a train.
There has to be a reasonable understanding of the underlying risks that are covered. Some things are just inherently risky, and if the buyer knows and understands that, she can agree on taking that risk. Otherwise, no doctor would ever touch any patient ever again.
I think we should be allowed to opt in to arbitration from within the public judicial system, once charges have already been brought forward. Then people will only agree to it when it’s legit just saving time/money, and won’t change the likely ruling.
A public system designed for everyone can never be as cheap as one specific to the issue/people at hand. It just needs to always be available as a fallback.
I think what you are mentioning is basically how settlements work.
I just can’t see how an arbitration company that is selected by a company will ever have the incentives to side with consumers.
I can only see arbitration working when both sides have equal leverage. Large company vs large company, citizen vs citizen. And both sides must have a say on which arbitration company is selected.
What I’m mentioning will frequently lead to settlements, but the choice of whether or not to use arbitration is typically made before there’s any case.
Both sides don’t have equal leverage today because of an information asymmetry market failure. The cost to the consumer to read the ToS (and research its arbitrators) for everything they buy is unreasonably high, while it costs the company very little. If consumers only had to research arbitrators after the fact, then the company would have a strong incentive to agree to a fair one, avoiding the public courts.
Otherwise, no doctor would ever touch any patient ever again.
Demonstrably false. In a public healthcare system it is also possible to have publicly funded patient injury compensation systems. Source: Live in Norway and we have both.
That’s not the same. You still don’t have any legal claims against the hospital or the doctor. You can’t sue your surgeon, because you missed, say another week of work because of some unexpected bleeding.
Uhm what are you talking about? Why would I want to sue my surgeon?
EDIT: The reasons why I would not sue my surgeon are:
It is not a private legal matter, but a matter of adequate services rendered.
The question of liability can be better answered by a specialized team of doctors that review my case than a jury.
Legal action is an obstacle made to disenfranchise those that cannot afford counsel, which is why the US loves it and we generally don’t.
We have laws that demand reasonable judgement. Hence I cannot make a claim for damages due to some unrelated reason and they cannot evade guilt by the same tactic.
If the surgeon did something illegal, this would be a different matter.
The whole point of the discussion was that arbitration clauses should be illegal, since they prevent you from suing.
Points were made, that it’s still a good thing for tattoo artists and doctors. Your earlier comment seemed to dispute this at first, but then pivoted to funds for damages (that exist and you can get without legal action.
You were then told that’s besides the point of the discussion, since it was exactly about suing.
It is not besides the point because there exists an alternative to the whole ordeal of arbitration clauses and suing. That is what I pointed out.
We all joke about how americans sue for the most stupid shit, but (besides different mindsets following from the same reason) you do it because your system allows for it and provides no alternative course of action.
The original comment says that these clauses should be made illegal, to which the comment I responded to objects. Objecting to change based on arguments that are only valid within the paradigm that exists before said change is nothing but a logical fallacy.
It is demonstrably false that the change has to entail the problems conjectured by the comment I responded to. Thus the counter argument is shown to be both reductionist and wrong.
It’s perfectly reasonable for, say, a tattoo artist not to be liable for the medical bills, if the ink causes a hitherto unknown allergy to kick in.
Why would it be rasonable? Did the tatoo artist do what is (keyword:) reasonable on their end to ensure that doesn’t happen? Did they make information about tatoo ink allergies known to their customers? Do they advise their customers about the allergies? Do they use FDA approved tatoo inks?
It’s not reasonable to argue that a streaming service agreement covers liability for being cut in half by a train.
Did the streaming service clearly for example cause magnetic interference and was ruled as a large contributor to the disaster? If yes, then it’s reasonable.
Whatever scenatio you think of, there’s always room for liability. Some, nay, mlst of it’s far-fetched, but not impossible.
However there’s at least one thing that’s never reasonable, and that’s arbitration itself. Arbitration is someone making a decition which can’t be amended after it’s made. It can’t be appealed. New evidence coming to light after-the-fact means nothing. Arvbitration is absolute.
Arbitration doesn’t allow complaint. The judgement is final.
Which is fucking ridiculous.
Let’s return to your two claims of unreasonability:
It’s perfectly reasonable for, say, a tattoo artist not to be liable for the medical bills, if the ink causes a hitherto unknown allergy to kick in.
It’s not reasonable to argue that a streaming service agreement covers liability for being cut in half by a train.
There’s nothing stopping a normal court from fairly making a judgement. It can be appealed, which is fine.
What isn’t fine is giving a company, or a like-minded court sole and absolute jurisdictions over suits against a company by its users. And above that, making said judgements unappealable.
To paraphrase you: there has to be a reasonable understanding of the underlying facts of the case covered. Some claims are clearly ubsubstantiated. Some, however, are clearly substantiated and if the service provider knows and understands that, they would accept the jurisdiction of the court system without carveouts grossly in their favour.
no doctor would ever touch any patient ever again.
My country has heavy immunity for doctors. I think we can’t sue them, like it’s automatically a regional arbitration hearing, and at no point can one get “pain and suffering” but only “recoup of costs to fix as much as possible” kind of stuff.
So if the doc removes the wrong foot, he’ll lose his job, and you’ll get a pegleg or something like that.
Hmm. Just reading that makes me think the rate of vindictive doctor slayings is too low for that to be true.
Every time you get surgery, you sign a waiver basically saying “there’s an inherent risk to this, we’re not liable unless someone really screws up”. And that’s exactly what Disney is trying here - just using an absolutely bonkers interpretation of it.
Your tattoo example doesn’t make sense to me. The tattoo shop could require an agreement limiting liability without denying access to the courts.
Are you saying that it’s reasonable to be allowed to waive your right to access the legal system when getting a tattoo but not when accessing streaming services?
You need to reform lawsuits at the same time. The US legal system allows lawyers to take cases on contingency, getting paid only if they win. In most other countries this isn’t allowed. In addition, in most other countries it’s much easier for the winner of the lawsuit to recover the legal costs of the lawsuit from the loser.
The result of this is that the US has a lot more nuisance and extremely speculative lawsuits. Under those conditions, a binding arbitration setup is more reasonable. It means that neither side is spending tons of money on lawyers. If you reform the legal system so that only people who stand a decent chance of winning are willing to sue, then definitely get rid of binding arbitration.
Tbf: he renewed this agreement when buying tickets which doesn’t really make it better but still
Edit: since I got some downvotes and comments, I’m not saying they are in the right, all I’m relativizing is the “years earlier” at the end. The contract was renewed recently, still it totally doesn’t cover this kind of situation.
Contracts can’t really shield from that kind of negligence either though. You can’t have someone sign a contract indemnifying you from everything and then have no culpability when you literally poison them.
I get that servers have to deal with selective gluten allergies but nut and dairy allergies are not that. They are deadly and the server/kitchen should have absolutely refused to serve any food they couldn’t separate. This is basic knowledge in the food industry too, something they should have known and been trained on.
Gen-X here. Millenials felt like our younger siblings. Gen-Z feel like our kids and our pride and joy. Gen-Alpha so far feels like that bad acid trip we had back in '91 about Garbage Pail Kids.
I feel like you might be out of the loop here. I want to help. “Chat, [statement or rhetorical question]” has become a meme slang, like millennials calling dogs anything but dogs (pupper, good boi, heckin floof, etc). It comes from Twitch, AFAICT, where streamers use this unironically (and ironically) to interact with their chat.
I’m not, it’s twitch streamer lingo, I know. Asking this how OP did, in a post, like people posting here are OP’s parasocial fans, is just immensely disrespectful. Why not just ask “Is this real?”
I’m not sure which came first, but in my friend group we often will use similar terminology in our group chats. “Hello chat, I just…” “Good morning chat, should I be concerned about…”
My name starts with Chat (real name too, but pronounced with Sh instead of a ch) and Chat/Chati are my nicknames. I know how Karens feel when memes use their names…
So Karens need to stop fucking whining, it ain’t that bad and some of us have been hearing people equate our name to shit since middle school and just chuckle.
I had a real Don Glover moment too where I had heard people replace the Chat with shit but didn’t realize telling the people hiring me they could just call me Shat would sound weird.
Boss later told me how weird it was explaing to the team that Shat would be joining the team soon.