Originally published at: After massive public outcry, Disney stops attempt to kill lawsuit after killing restaurant guest - Boing Boing
…
1 Like
Contributed by “Yoy Luadha.”
9 Likes
Sooooo… maybe I’ve been reading the wrong stories, but the restaurant in question is in Disney Springs, which is like an outdoor mall, and is not owned, managed or run by Disney. Disney was named in the lawsuit, which is also directed against the restaurant itself, because they are a landlord for the restaurant. Not defending the clearly inhuman Disney lawyer that came up with a shrink-wrap TOS defense as a way of removing Disney from the case, but facts are important.
1 Like
I agree. So I went to the Disney Springs website. Here’s a screenshot.
Let’s click on that Legal Notices link and see where it takes us.
Sure seems like more than just an incidental relationship with Disney to me.
25 Likes
Disney Springs is the resort area. Raglan Road Irish Pub looks to be the restaurant. My understanding is that it’s standard to just file suits against everyone and the courts can divvy up blame.
I’m glad to hear Disney ditched the silly argument forcing them into arbitration. I’ve had friends observe Disney will frequently make egregious decisions. Usually they make the right one after being publicly shamed.
I’m curious how this plays out. There was a well-known local LA restaurant announced to be moving into Downtown Disney (their CA equivalent) a year or two ago. I heard the restaurant recently backed out because of Disneys requirements. I’m sure any landlord has “requirements” for tenants, but Disney seems to have more particular expectations for their tenants.
3 Likes
Look, if Disney had no relationship with this restaurant beyond being a landlord, they could have, and would have, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit against them on the basis that they have no liability. Yes, sometimes people sue everyone remotely connected to their claim. And when one of those defendants has no connection that would make them liable by law, they can get that suit against them dismissed. In other words, they can get themselves removed from the lawsuit. It happens a lot. But that’s not what Disney did here. They didn’t deny any connection that could make them liable if the restaurant were found to be negligent. They argued that it should go to arbitration. Not that they’re the wrong defendant. They’ve never made that argument here. That tells me their connection to the restaurant is more than just landlord-tenant.
23 Likes
What seems worth mentioning is that Disney’s statement is
“At Disney, we strive to put humanity above all other considerations. With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss. As such, we’ve decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court,”
A fairly clear admission that they are walking back because the PR is atrocious; but also a quite open reiteration of their position that they have the right to force the matter into the obscurity and convenience of arbitration and are, in their benevolence, voluntarily refraining from exercising it in this specific instance.
It could be that PR flacks just aren’t the venue for abandoning legal theories and they are doing so elsewhere; but they absolutely are not disavowing the our-lawyers-can-be-imagineers-too-if-you-like-cyberpunk-dystopia position itself.
8 Likes
OR, the facts of this case are quite sympathetic, it garnered a lot of media attention, and Disney’s argument was both tenuous enough and cold-blooded enough that taking a loss on that one issue could have resulted in real and lasting damage to the enforceability of broad pre-dispute arbitration clauses.
They’ve still got layers of protection that will be legally difficult and costly for the plaintiff to penetrate, but even if Disney loses at trial or settles, the cost of one case is nothing in comparison to the cost of losing binding arbitration clauses as a first line of defense (I’m guessing others in the business community also voiced that concern).
Probably the right decision for Disney, not a storybook ending for the family.
2 Likes
Correct, this is on Disney property but not owned or managed by Disney. An outdoor mall is a good analogy here.
Nevertheless (and unsurprisingly), Disney was named as a defendant; I’d wager because they have the deepest pockets here by far.
IANAL, but I’m guessing the conversation with the Disney council went something like this:
“Hey, this isn’t our business, they are tenants, do everything in your power to ensure we aren’t a party to this lawsuit, it sets a terrible precident to have us dragged into this as a landlord”
The lawyers proceeded to do exactly that, and likely didn’t expect their arguments to be quite so publicly reviewed. Now that they have been, I’m not surprised at the about face here, it was a terrible argument!
I do wonder though if part of the reason they gave in is because they feel they will be likely to remove themselves from the lawsuit anyway, again for the whole landlord thing.
3 Likes
They must have missed the part where Hegemony Cricket sings “always let your conscience be your guide.”
ftfy
1 Like
Replace “cars in the field” with “Disney+ subscribers and parks visitors” and “probable rate of failure” with “reputational damage” and it’s easy to see how they found their humanity.
The name “Disney Springs” would never have existed.
4 Likes
That’s some real human empathy you got there.
4 Likes
Nobody who has ever met a Disney lawyer recognises the concept of an “incidental” relationship with Disney. There is no such thing!
Exactly!
4 Likes
Please see my comment above yours. If that were an option, that’s what they would have done first, because there would have been no need even for arbitration. They clearly have more of a relationship with this restaurant than just being their landlord.
5 Likes
Precisely this. Given the sheer size and number of Disney resorts and theme parks, I guarantee they have a template that compassionately disavows liability and hopes the courts will resolve the issue satisfactorily.
Although it is pure conjecture, that someone tried the “you can’t sue us because of an unrelated thing you did 3 years earlier” suggests to me they conducted an internal review and learned some pretty damning information about the situation.
While I will be watching this closely (it’s already forming the basis for my 2025 ethics training case study), my guess is that Disney will settle out of court in a month or two after the outrage dies down. I can’t imagine Disney wants any fact of the case disclosed to the public.
4 Likes
It’s crucial to note that Disney said that they are “waiving their right” to forced arbitration. They still fully believe that they had the right to do it in the first place, are only stopping because of the blowback, and may do it again in the future.
6 Likes
Huh? The restaurant is third-party owned. Disney has no ownership interest in it, any more than they do in the several Patina group restaurants right beside it.
They were added to the suit because it’s on Disney property, in the same way that this happening in a, say, Cheesecake Factory in a mall might choose to include the Mall owners in the suit as well.
I repeat, see my comment above. I address this. I do not believe they are just a landlord. Being a landlord and nothing else wouldn’t provide any pathway to liability for the plaintiff. If that’s all Disney’s relationship with the restaurant was, they would file a motion to have them removed as a defendant. They did not do this. They aren’t arguing they have no liability by virtue of not owning the restaurant.
3 Likes
That’s exactly how I read it. Seems like a great way to drive potential Disney+ customers to torrents instead of subscriptions. Maybe I should check the terms and conditions where I live (which is not the US), but I’m canceling my Netflix subscription to try out another service, and Disney+ is no longer one of the options I’m considering.
1 Like
I do this on the regular in my job. I’m currently filing a motion to dismiss a suit against us by a group of farmers whose harvest was ruined when a shoddily built warehouse allowed rain water to leak in through the roof onto their commodities. We only provided grant funds for building the warehouse, we didn’t approve the architectural plans, didn’t supply the materials, the construction, or operate the warehouse. Our grant agreement with the cooperative explicitly indemnified us against any damages or losses resulting from the construction or operation of the warehouse. Our liability was limited to providing a fixed dollar amount.
Of course we feel bad for the farmers, but they have to sue their co-op (which they are members and own), the co-op leadership, the government inspectors, and or the construction firm for damages. The loss has nothing to do with us, and we aren’t wasting time trying to force arbitration.
4 Likes
