Disney plays dirty?

[Steep]

Summary of the article. An Indonesian doctor died from anaphylaxis in 2023 after eating at a restaurant in Disneyworld. Her husband is suing Disney who say that because 1) she bought a Disney+ sub 4 years earlier and 2) He bought tickets to Disney world, he cannot sue them.

The fine print in both cases says you give up your rights to a jury trial in any future litigation.

Disney Absurdly Tries To Dismiss Lawsuit Over Doctor's Wrongful Death Using Disney+ Subscription

This is deeply upsetting.

www.comicsands.com

 

[ancient_mariner]

I would expect local law to over-rule T&C's in this situation unless they are in America.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

There's an interesting discussion on the subject of "onerous conditions" in commercial contracts, which appear to be held to a lower standard than contracts involving individuals...

Am I bound by the small print in a contract?

The judgment in the case of Blu-Sky Solutions Ltd will be of interest to business owners wary of onerous clauses ‘buried’ in the small print.

www.birketts.co.uk

This seems to mean that, in the UK anyway, a company cannot rely on imposing onerous conditions unless they can prove that the the customer had the conditions brought to their attention and that they clearly understood what they were agreeing to.

Mind you, I'm no lawyer, if only because I would have failed the "slimy git" test!

 

[Box Brownie]

In some regards it sounds like the social media platforms saying we are not publishers therefore cannot be held accountable for the content on the platform.

Depending on the jurisdiction of the 'offence' and the country whose laws the site is governed by, and whether due diligence can be held to trump such one sided prescriptive rules........it would be interesting to know how this one turns out

 

[Peter123]

From memory I don't think an employer/organisation can contract their way out of health & safety legislation in the UK.

 

[Box Brownie]

Just looking at the OP linked article and it was Disney in Orlando Florida.

USA has always struck as oh so litigatious and would think that they would rather settle than attract more negative reputational damage.

 

[Mr Bump]

yeah but this is merica yeah where you can buy a glock at 16 but can't drink beer till 21 lol

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

...would think that they would rather settle than attract more negative reputational damage.

I imagine that there's a careful path to be trodden between the consequences of settling, to avoid reputational damage and fighting, to win and thereby discourage others bringing similar cases.

 

[Box Brownie]

I imagine that there's a careful path to be trodden between the consequences of settling, to avoid reputational damage and fighting, to win and thereby discourage others bringing similar cases.

A good point!

If I understood the OP article correctly Disney appear to be sticking their "you signed our terms for one or more of our products years ago.......agreeing, if in dispute, to (independent?) non court arbitration resolutions....." therefore you cannot take us to court!

Also, the eaterie where it happened sounds like a third party franchise on site i.e. not a Disney business?