[ilovecurl]

I wonder if there was a connection to the ongoing wrongful death lawsuit after a doctor suffered a fatal allergic reaction at a Disney World restaurant? That's the one where Disney tried to get her widower's lawsuit tossed by pointing to the fine print of a Disney+ trial he had signed up for years earlier.

[add-sub-mul-div]

They wouldn't be pointing to the fine print of a Disney+ trial if they had a murderer they could point to.

[zardo]

They would. Someone hacking their computers and causing a death doesn't necessarily absolve them of liability, while a waver of liability could do exactly that.

[Enginerrrd]

With all due respect that is just not how lawyers operate. They can and will use every argument within their constraints that can lead to a win. That's their job. They are even allowed to put forth arguments that are mutually exclusive and nonsensical when taken together.

[dghlsakjg]

Yea, but lawyers for the biggest corporations on earth also have to be aware of when their actions will cost in goodwill and publicity.

Making a weak legal argument that is bound to highlight the heartlessness of a corporation that tries to be famously accommodating and friendly to guests is a move that should have been caught before the argument was filed.

How much in goodwill and PR work did it cost them to make an argument that would have saved them maybe a million dollars in the unlikely event it worked.

There’s a reason that corporations will often settle cases that they are legally in the right for, and cost benefit analyses are a huge part of that.

[add-sub-mul-div]

Very well, if there was a connection to a person who even potentially caused the death with mischief it would obviously be part of the story and in the headline, was the point.

[SilasX]

That's not true. They're obligated to make good faith arguments consistent with the legal profession's ethics code, that don't deliberately waste the court's time with rabbit holes, not just throw forth everything that might stick because they duped the right judge. (This came up IIRC when Trump's lawyers made such arguments to dispute the 2020 election results.)

"Disney+'s terms of services categorically shields us from all legal liability" is not a good-faith argument, and, if accepted generally, would create a world no one seriously wants to live in, including those lawyers.

This is especially true when Disney had an actually reasonable, good-faith argument in this case, that the law can't pass on liability for everything a restaurant does wrong, just because you recommend it, especially when the regulation and management of that restaurant is totally out of your control. This would create a horrible world where no one can make a recommendation without thereby becoming responsible for everything that goes wrong at that establishment later.

[shadowgovt]

Not directly. His changes were never seen by the public.