Disney Seeks Dismissal Wrongful Death Lawsuit b/c Victim Is Disney+ Subscriber

In the unlikely best case, they get the case dismissed, but even in the most likely case that the motion is denied, they win by wearing down their opponent who has much more limited resources and is personally affected by the case dragging out, i.e. more likely to accept a (lower) settlement than without this tactic. The only downside is a tiny bit of legal costs.

Courts should be able to issue sanctions/extra damages for the use of such tactics. If using such a tactic turned the claim from "you killed this person negligently" to "you killed this person negligently, then willfully tried sleazy tricks to create additional suffering for the husband", and had the potential to double the award, companies would be much less eager to play this game.

On this basis, any transactions, of any nature which come with an Implied contract acceptance are going to be superseded by words which enable get-out-of-jail-free for all parent, associated, restructured companies, forever.

Watch out when you sign the hotel bill. You just promised to give your body on death to the parent company's medical school.

I doubt it's that simple but you would hope the justice system is going to tear this legal theory a new exit hole and not wash their hands first. Specificity is everything in a contract. Sweeping terms, perpetual licence would be a nightmare.

(Not a lawyer, which will be obvious)

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.

The terms do require Disney+ users to "agree to resolve, by binding individual arbitration as provided below, all Disputes" with some IP exceptions.

But "Disputes" is a term of art that "includes any claim, dispute, action, or other controversy, whether based on past, present, or future events, whether based in contract, tort, statute, or common law, between you and Disney concerning the Disney Products or this Agreement" (emphasis added).

What are the Disney Products? They are "certain websites, software, applications, content, products, and services in any media format or channel."

I hope the lawyers get sanctioned and disbarred.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25041321-disney-arbi...

> In the latest update for the Disney Springs wrongful death lawsuit, Disney cited legal language within the terms and conditions for Disney+, which “requires users to arbitrate all disputes with the company.” Disney claims Piccolo reportedly agreed to this in 2019 when signing up for a one-month free trial of the streaming service on his PlayStation console.

One month free trial! But the Disney Lawyers found it.

See also Newsday article:

https://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/disney-restaurant...

By way of background: I am a retired trial attorney and spent 40 years litigating cases involving insurance.

It is possible that Disney's lawyers expect their motion to dismiss the wrongful death lawsuit from the Florida trial court and compel arbitration to fail, but are (1) attempting to take the shot and see if the judge agrees, which is a win for them, and (2) may be attempting to take advantage of the rules of procedure where even if their motion is denied, Disney can benefit. There is little for them to lose by trying.

First, as others have commented, even if Disney's arguments fail, the only real consequences are born by the plaintiff in terms of time and other resources. Civil trials like this are wars of attrition between parties with vastly asymmetric resources.

Second, under the rules of civil procedure in many states, which may be the case under Florida law, a denied motion to compel arbitration can be appealed and while that appeal is pending, the case would typically be "stayed" (i.e. paused). Resolution of the appeal can take several years, again applying consequences to the plaintiff in terms of time and other resources, even if the appeal fails.

Because of the above, US corporate defendants have been observed to incorporate motions to compel arbitration into their strategies, even when no arbitration agreement, whatsoever, existed. Even in such a situation, when their motion to compel arbitration is denied, the trial court case is stayed (i.e. frozen) for several years while the denied motion to compel arbitration is pending appeal.

In California, this became such a problem for both regular plaintiffs and the state's Attorney General, that the state legislature passed a law to change the rules of civil procedure, via SB365 (2023), which took effect this year on January 1, 2024. Under current California law, trial court cases are no longer automatically stayed while a denied motion to compel arbitration are pending appeal.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

Meanwhile, under US Federal Law (from a Supreme Court ruling in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski - 2023), when a motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) is denied, the trial court case is automatically stayed.

Those Disney attorneys feel perfectly safe pulling this, and that's a problem imo.

Everyone I've ever met that has a severe allergy has an adverse reaction immediately after exposure to the allergen.

Even the Epi pen did not work. Must have been a really bad reaction. Imagine going though life knowing that even a tiny misstep can kill you.

Anaphylaxis is a huge issue. I think we should chill out and recognize that people make mistakes, and it’s not fair to pin somebody’s death on accidental contamination.

Should they be more careful? Yes.

But you can’t screw someone for this because it’s just not fair. It the universes fault, we shouldn’t be fighting each other.

My 2 cents

In a future so near as to have happened a few years ago, monopolies and near-monopolies can force people who use their services to submit to arbitrary private legal codes and systems of judgement. It's almost like giving up your citizenship. It's like how the US government doesn't have to follow the law in Guantanamo, except Guantanamo is Walgreens, or Amazon.

edit: I just had a 10-second nightmare where giving Walgreens my phone number and hitting "I accept" on the screen at the checkout, in order to get the sale price, somehow prevents me from suing my doctor for malpractice after a horrible medical accident. I thought I was just selling my privacy, but I was actually selling my rights as a US citizen.

From the BBC: "Disney+ terms prevent allergy death lawsuit, Disney says" <https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8jl0ekjr0go>

From CNN: "Disney wants wrongful death suit dismissed because widower signed up for Disney+" <https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/14/business/disney-plus-wrongful...>

From the Guardian: "Disney claims streaming arbitration clause binding in resort wrongful death suit" <https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/14/disn...>

From NPR: "Disney wants a wrongful death lawsuit thrown out because plaintiff had Disney+" <https://www.npr.org/2024/08/14/nx-s1-5074830/disney-wrongful...>

From the NY Post: "Disney wants allergy death suit tossed because of widower's Disney+ subscription" <https://nypost.com/2024/08/13/us-news/disney-wants-allergy-d...>

From the Telegraph: "Disney World: Cannot sue over wife's death at park as he signed up for Disney+" <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/08/14/florida-di...>

(I'm editing this comment to add additional sources as they're submitted to HN and flagged as dupes...)

Okay this is full blown dystopia, the onion couldnt even make this up

Christ, she even self administered an epipen, was transported to a hospital and died anyway

This is a nightmare like, just be a human Disney, there are so many humans involved here

It makes this seem even more vexatious as Disney want to have the case dismissed because it was the deceased’s husband who signed up for a free trial of Disney+.

https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/problems/

I wonder if it's possible to penalize the lawyers for even coming up with this argument?

i can imagine as a lawyer thinking of this jokingly, but to actually go through with it is wild

If the courts let Disney be called guilty it renders all fine print not legally binding.

This changes society itself.

Disney is technically right. Being technically right is well defined.

At the same time here the technicality they are using here sounds completely absurd.

How do we maintain technical integrity of the law while taking into account exceptional cases such as this?