The lawsuit claims that Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan suffered a fatal allergic reaction after eating at a Disney Springs restaurant despite repeatedly informing the waiter of her severe allergy.

  • gibmiser@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    71
    ·
    4 months ago

    "Disney is calling for the lawsuit to be dismissed because her husband signed up for a one-month trial of the Disney+ streaming service years prior.

    The company says signing up for the trial requires users to arbitrate all disputes with the company."

    Some lawyers truly are scum.

      • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        So would this mean that Disney can no longer use their massive legal department to crush fair use of their IP? If someone signs up for Disney+, the arbitration agreement goes both ways.

        I would think a competent judge would just ask the Disney lawyer that question. Like, “do you want to be out of a job?”

        • Billiam@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          27
          ·
          4 months ago

          No.

          You and Disney agree to arbitrate all your claims. Disney still retains the right to fuck you over to the full extent of the legal system.

          After all, corporations are people, and some people are more people than other people.

    • edric@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 months ago

      Arguing over health/death via a technicality is one of the lowest of lows.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        This shouldn’t even be a technicality here. If this goes through and a TOS is universally binding to your life then the court system just died. Also they can put other ridiculous things in there like you owe them the subscription money in perpetuity even if you decide to uninstall the app. They’ll argue the consideration is there because you can re-install at any time.

        • Glemek@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          Just get your bullets inscribed with “by receiving this bullet you have agreed to our tos, by which all liability is to be decided by the shooter’s dog, who does not like you.” Then murder is legal.

    • foggy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      I do hope whoever suggested that this is a legitimate cause to dismiss the case dies of an intestinal blockage caused by hemorrhoids. Just a thing I hope.

      • QuantumSparkles@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        4 months ago

        Very much nottheonion material. Something like

        ”Disney Legal Team Argues that Agreeing to the Terms & Conditions of Their Streaming Platform Releases The Company of Any and All Potential Liability in Shellfish Poisonings”

    • nifty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Don’t blame lawyers, blame the lawmakers. Heck, people and/or civil society is responsible for petitioning to lawmakers for stronger protections. Absurd amounts of money/lobbying has perverted the process, which is why a lot of these entities need to be taxed of out their power to have lobbying money.

  • Kiernian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    4 months ago

    Event happened at raglan road Irish pub, when raglan road staff failed to do their job in regards to food allergens.

    Diner dies from anaphylaxis due to ingested dairy and nuts, which they were ASSURED BY THE WAITER WAS NOT IN ANY OF THEIR FOOD.

    Disney is calling for the lawsuit to be dismissed because her husband signed up for a one-month trial of the Disney+ streaming service years prior. The company says signing up for the trial requires users to arbitrate all disputes with the company

    • WindyRebel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Haven’t courts ruled that those terms and conditions aren’t totally enforceable since no one can really read and/or understand them all?

      This is a food issue and literally has nothing to do with any fucking digital agreement whatsoever. Full stop.

      • Kairos@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I think in this case, it wouldn’t count because of the “of course the terms of service only applies to the service, dipshit” and maybe “hey how about you grow a pair of eyes and notice her husband is not the Lady herself”

        Edit: and maybe just a taste of “how about you go fuck yourself.”

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      4 months ago

      Pllllllllllleeeeeeaaassseeeee let this go to trial. I’m begging y’all. They weren’t even active subscribers of Disney+, they only got the trial. But holy fuck either way, this is stupid. Arbitration agreements should be illegal.

  • nieceandtows@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    4 months ago

    It would be a lot more beneficial to them to add an arbitration clause to all their movies. Watching the next avengers movie? You give up the rights to your first born.

  • cdf12345@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    4 months ago

    Arbitration clauses need to be deemed illegal.

    Especially ones that are mandatory for employment

    • solsangraal@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      4 months ago

      or at the absolute bare fucking minimum be opt-in only, instead of “opt out by sending us a handwritten letter through snail mail within 45 minutes of this notice.” the shit offers less than zero benefit to the consumer and basically lets corporations get away with murder

      nothing will ever change to make them go away

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Opt in with customers isn’t a thing. If you don’t opt in, you don’t get housing, or Internet, or phone service. The list goes on. Opt in is libertarian propaganda. No different than at will employment.

        • Sesudesu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          Yeah, I was gonna say basically the same thing, ‘opt in’ is just a solid point of leverage away from ‘required.’

          Should be illegal.

    • hddsx@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 months ago

      Arbitration has its place in B2B contracts.

      With consumers or employees? Absolutely not

    • gramie@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’m just about to move to Quebec, which is based on the French Napoleonic code rather than English Common Law. I’m not an expert, but I understand that the French system does not rely on precedent in making judicial decisions, but everything has to be codified in the law.

      Anyway, another one of the legal differences between Quebec and other provinces in Canada is that mandatory arbitration clauses are illegal.

      The medical system may be imploding even faster than the rest of Canada, and my rights as an English speaker may be stripped from me by the time I move, but they do have some protections for individuals.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Merde, j’ai besoin d’aller au Montreal!

        (I know that’s not quite right, but I’m proud of it anyway 'cause I didn’t use machine translation.)

    • LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Yes agreed. It should be illegal to compel someone to give up their fucking rights (to their detriment and to the benefit of the person making them agree especially, especially when the person benefitting is an authority figure). This includes police encouraging the people they arrest to talk without a lawyer.

  • JonsJava@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    The estate should file the claim. They wronged her, not the husband. By having the estate file suit, that would negate anything the husband may have done.

      • JonsJava@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Not wrong. Actually, if they don’t, that’s the easy way to dismissal for Disney. “Can’t be that bad if the chef and waitress weren’t sued”

  • Jimmycakes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Every article about this is so garbage. I’ve read like 10 different ones and I have no idea what she ate at all. One article said she had a nut and dairy allergy but I’m not even sure that’s correct. I need to know what she ordered how Disney lists it on the menu and what the waiter was supposed to do with the dish. If her allergy is bad enough that she died it would need to be a really heavy dose of allergen which I assume she would be able to see?

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      What does any of that have to do with Disney wanting the case dismissed because they had a trial Disney+ account years ago?

      No one is asking you to decide who the guilty party is here. The point is how absurd this attempt to get the case dismissed is.

    • warbond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s in this article: “The couple asked the waiter several more times to be absolutely sure the food would be allergen free before Tangsuan ordered a fritter, scallops and onion rings, the lawsuit said.”

    • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      That’s the nitty gritty of the lawsuit, but these articles are all about how Disney is trying to get the lawsuit thrown out completely not about the lawsuit itself.

  • Canis_76@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    37
    ·
    4 months ago

    I’m not saying that one should be confined to home eating only what they personally curate. I am saying that this broad made it through medical school, did a residency, dealt with a healthy cross section of society at is dumbest. Who literally puts their life in the hands of a waiter, who has to them communicate to a cook, if there was one. Some doctors graduate with D’s.