Hacker News Reader

Comment by tsimionescu | Hacker News Reader

The argument in the legal papers is that access to the park (and access to the restaurant website that claimed that the food that caused the lethal anafilaxis contained no allergens) was purchased through the Disney+ account. They also claim that the ticket purchase terms of use explicitly say that they are in addition to the Disney+ account terms of use.

I have no idea of this is true, but if it is, it might be more likely than it appears at first for this motion to succeed. At least there is some direct connection between the Disney+ account and the restaurant, it's not just that the husband happens to be Disney+ subscriber who wen to this restaurant.

This is quite horrible precedent though if physical injuries of this kind can be covered by a checkbox you clicked without reading on a website somewhere two years before.

View on HN

Disney Springs is a shopping mall though. You don't need a ticket to visit. It's also a stretch to claim one agreed to certain terms of service by merely visiting a website.

It's also a stretch to claim Disney is responsible for what their tenants serve in restaurants.

The restaurant is a separate entity? I just assumed it was owned by Disney from the mere existence of the lawsuit.

Indeed. The restaurant is operated by Great Irish Pubs Florida Inc, as noted in the lawsuit filings (Disney and GIPF are listed as separate defendants).

Here is the companies filing records.

https://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/corporationsearch/SearchRe...

> It's also a stretch to claim Disney is responsible for what their tenants serve in restaurants.

Is it? Then why is Disney in the name of the location?

Disney Springs is a mall.

Yeah; wonder why their lawyers didn’t go with that angle. It seems much more intuitive.

They probably did, it’s just not newsworthy. They generally give as many arguments as they can in support of a motion they just need one to work, but the news is only interested in what’s surprising, not reporting on the trial.

Lawyers are ethically obligated to put every argument that could work in their filings.

They did. Their answer to the lawsuit advances that argument. This is a separate motion to stay the lawsuit proceedings and refer it to arbitration per the terms they claim were agreed to.

Or put another way this motion isn’t claiming they aren’t liable because of the agreement to arbitration, they’re arguing that the venue is incorrect based on that agreement. The motion is for a stay of proceedings pending the arbitration.

Edit:

In fact the plaintiffs answer to this motion probably illustrates why this motion was filed in the first place. If you have and arbitration clause but you participate in a lawsuit voluntarily, the courts view this as waiving your right to arbitration. Presumably this is to protect against a case where a side engages in a lawsuit and seeing that it’s going badly for them, tries to have it switched to arbitration later. In order to have arbitration at all, they have to start by arguing for arbitration before committing too far into a court case

Because the purpose of a lawyer is to go with every viable angle.

Isn’t the restaurant operated by Disney?

No, though maybe there is a reasonable assumption they enforce more oversight on tenants than a typical mall would. They do publish the restaurant menu on their website (including allergen info) and you can make reservations through their app. But the restaurant is ultimately a tenant operated by someone else in Disney's free to enter outdoor shopping mall. The original source of the incorrect info was definitely the restaurant, and the restaurant is also the one that doubled down on the incorrect info when the woman asked IRL. The main reason to sue Disney here is they're much richer than a Florida Irish pub chain.

You're right, I didn't realize that from the court docs. The tickets are just as much unrelated as the video streaming, this is just as absurd as it appeared on its face...

The plaintiff is arguing an equally absurd notion, that because they are suing on behalf of the estate, the estate never signed up for Disney+ because it didn't exist before the death.

So you know, it's all absurdity vs absurdity.

The reasonable human thing would be to say that an autosigned agreement should have a higher bar on terms and in particar no provision in it can be valid for irrelevant things to the immediate service at hand. (Several others have made the same conclusion.)

Found out in the meantime that I was wrong - the tickets are not for this mall and have just as little to do with the case as Disney+ video. Disney's claim is just that absurd...

This defense is absurd, but also there are no tickets for the mall and Disney doesn't own most of the stores/restaurants in the mall. The restaurant in question is a tenant and the company that owns it is also being sued.

but even then, forced arbitration should not be legal for anything more serious ever (and isn't in countires with a less broken legal system)

I think you make a good point.

But here's my counterargument: if I buy someone a ticket to a concert, then are they bound to the terms I agreed, including in relation to harm to them caused by (alleged) supplier negligence? I'd argue that they have a claim in tort, not contract, and therefore the terms of my contract with the supplier are not relevant.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com