Don't read the Apple terms if you've ever signed them!

Oh and give the guy $100K in arbitration if this dirty trick works but it shouldn't Disney+ is not a ride in the park if you will.

BigRobSA said:

---

Lawyers

---

Hungry Ojos said:

---

They're only seeking $50k for a wrongful death??? And Disney wouldn't just settle for that?????

---

Insurance carrier likely telling them not to pay for whatever reason.

Hungry Ojos said:

---

They're only seeking $50k for a wrongful death??? And Disney wouldn't just settle for that?????

---

Disney is evil. I refuse to go back to their parks or ever take their cruise.

Now I do admit we have Disney+, but I can't remember the last time I watched anything on it (maybe the Obi Wan series?) If I could talk my wife into it, I would end that sub as well. I'm not ending my ESPN+ sub, so I will remain a hypocrite to some degree.

Hungry Ojos said:

---

They're only seeking $50k for a wrongful death??? And Disney wouldn't just settle for that?????

---

Might be a comorbidity issue? Florida is a modified comparative negligence state, meaning if a jury finds a plaintiff 50+% liable for their own injury, no recovery for the remaining percentage of damages.

Quote:

---

Piccolo is seeking damages in excess of $50,000 pursuant to Florida's Wrongful Death Act, as well as damages for mental pain and suffering, loss of companionship and protection, loss of income and medical and funeral expenses.

---

I'm guessing it's just really sloppy writing by the author as further down in the article it has this statement. I'm assuming there must be something in Florida law that has $50k as the dividing line between how certain cases are adjudicated, but I'll gladly defer to the resident legal eagles.

YellAg2004 said:

---

Quote:

---

Piccolo is seeking damages in excess of $50,000 pursuant to Florida's Wrongful Death Act, as well as damages for mental pain and suffering, loss of companionship and protection, loss of income and medical and funeral expenses.

---

I'm guessing it's just really sloppy writing by the author as further down in the article it has this statement. I'm assuming there must be something in Florida law that has $50k as the dividing line between how certain cases are adjudicated, but I'll gladly defer to the resident legal eagles.

---

The $50k definitely seems low for a wrongful death suit but that's how it was written. I think you may be right about it being sloppy writing.

What a load of crap, I would call up Buzzbee and get him on retainer

aggiehawg said:

---

annie88 said:

---

I hope this doesn't hold up.

Buying a streaming service and what happened at the park are not even related.

---

Plus it is a wrongful death case, personal injury, a tort. Courts do not look kindly on claimed waivers or agreeing to arbitration in advance of an injury. That would the definition of an adhesion contract.

---

IANAL
I took one course in corporate law during the summer @ UTD. One lesson regarded a company requiring people to sign terms and conditions and other documents. These documents can't waive the company's legal responsibilities. Not sure if this applies in this circumstance.
ETA
quote from the article

• The waiter guaranteed the couple that certain foods could be made allergen-free, which the two confirmed "several more times," according to the lawsuit. She alsoordered a vegan fritter, scallops, onion rings and a vegan shepherd's pie.
  
  Although some of the food delivered lacked allergen-free flags, the waiter again assured them it was allergen free, but after dinner, Tangsuan, 42, went shopping in the Disney Springs area and began "suffering from a severe acute allergic reaction," according to the lawsuit.

Disney is being a total ******* considering they are ultimately responsible for her death.

If they are only asking for $50k, there are probably some bad case facts we don't know about.

ETA- "in excess of $50,000". It's probably to plead out of expedited case handling rules, plead into court jurisdiction or something along those lines. They will undoubtedly ask the jury (or arbitrator) for millions.

The other issue is that they are blaming what she ate on the restaurant, Raglan Road, which is owned and operated by Great Irish Pubs Florida. An Irish company.

Disney doesn't own or operate the restaurant.

Hungry Ojos said:

---

They're only seeking $50k for a wrongful death??? And Disney wouldn't just settle for that?????

---

Disney spent 50k for the time the lawyers charged writing that **** up

Wow! Disney+ terms of service? That's a bold strategy, Cotton.

Hungry Ojos said:

---

They're only seeking $50k for a wrongful death??? And Disney wouldn't just settle for that?????

---

If I'm the family, I'm now asking for a few million.

richardag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

annie88 said:

---

I hope this doesn't hold up.

Buying a streaming service and what happened at the park are not even related.

---

Plus it is a wrongful death case, personal injury, a tort. Courts do not look kindly on claimed waivers or agreeing to arbitration in advance of an injury. That would the definition of an adhesion contract.

---

IANAL
I took one course in corporate law during the summer @ UTD. One lesson regarded a company requiring people to sign terms and conditions and other documents. These documents can't waive the company's legal responsibilities. Not sure if this applies in this circumstance.
ETA
quote from the article

• The waiter guaranteed the couple that certain foods could be made allergen-free, which the two confirmed "several more times," according to the lawsuit. She alsoordered a vegan fritter, scallops, onion rings and a vegan shepherd's pie.
  
  Although some of the food delivered lacked allergen-free flags, the waiter again assured them it was allergen free, but after dinner, Tangsuan, 42, went shopping in the Disney Springs area and began "suffering from a severe acute allergic reaction," according to the lawsuit.

Disney is being a total ******* considering they are ultimately responsible for her death.

---

Placing a big sign reading Caveat Emptor on a restaurant might not be the best marketing campaign.

BigRobSA said:

---

Lawyers

---

Those who make a career out of *******izing the truth will eventually not know right from wrong. Then they become judges.

richardag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

annie88 said:

---

I hope this doesn't hold up.

Buying a streaming service and what happened at the park are not even related.

---

Plus it is a wrongful death case, personal injury, a tort. Courts do not look kindly on claimed waivers or agreeing to arbitration in advance of an injury. That would the definition of an adhesion contract.

---

IANAL
I took one course in corporate law during the summer @ UTD. One lesson regarded a company requiring people to sign terms and conditions and other documents. These documents can't waive the company's legal responsibilities. Not sure if this applies in this circumstance.
ETA
quote from the article

• The waiter guaranteed the couple that certain foods could be made allergen-free, which the two confirmed "several more times," according to the lawsuit. She alsoordered a vegan fritter, scallops, onion rings and a vegan shepherd's pie.
  
  Although some of the food delivered lacked allergen-free flags, the waiter again assured them it was allergen free, but after dinner, Tangsuan, 42, went shopping in the Disney Springs area and began "suffering from a severe acute allergic reaction," according to the lawsuit.

Disney is being a total ******* considering they are ultimately responsible for her death.

---

How is Disney responsible since they don't own or operate the business?

Reason #1043 to never sign up for free trials.

South Park was ahead of their time. AGAIN.

They are asking for an amount exceeding $50,000. That amount is the threshold needed to establish jurisdiction.

The Disney+ arbitration agreement defense is stupid and will be laughed out of court.

There may have been some sort of arbitration agreement when the tickets were purchased for park access which may be more applicable.

RikkiTikkaTagem said:

---

signing up for a free trial of Disney+….

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/14/business/disney-plus-wrongful-death-lawsuit/index.html

Quote:

---

Court documents show that the company is trying to get the $50,000 lawsuit dismissed because the plaintiff, Jeffrey Piccolo, signed up for a one-month trial of the streaming service Disney+ in 2019, which requires trial users to arbitrate all disputes with the company.

---

Amazing. Wonder what else I have signed away.

---

We're not far away from the Southpark episode where we find out that the Apple terms we agree to be connected to a Human Centipede.

CS78 said:

---

Reason #1043 to never sign up for free trials.

South Park was ahead of their time. AGAIN.

---

Sorry missed this.

Moral High Horse said:

---

Wow! Disney+ terms of service? That's a bold strategy, Cotton.

---

It's better than that. They are using an expired free one month trial of Disney + from years ago to try to get out of it.

If the terms of the free trial never expire, perhaps one could argue that the free trial doesn't expire.

There's the class action lawsuit from this. Everyone who signed up for a free trial of Disney + should have all paid membership fees refunded. Since this idea is just as ridiculous as Disney claiming that the expired free trial contract applies to a wrongful death at their park, it might work.

Even if Disney loses they would pay a lot more than $50,000 to fight the lawsuit.

Shocked the Disney lawyers were permitted to use this strategy.

Part of Disney brand is customer service and experience. To use this legal tactic in this case is opposite that.

This is just an absurd request by Disney legal council.