851
US couple blocked from suing Uber after crash say daughter agreed to Uber Eats terms
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
851 points (99.4% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
9901 readers
1175 users here now
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article
--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Disney is obviously just obfuscating their liability by running the restaurant as a separate entity. The restaurant can't operate without following Disney's rules. By all intents and purposes the restaurant is controlled by Disney and Disney either knew or should have known that the restaurant was putting people at risk.
Your uninformed conjecture is not fact or truth.
Show me the lease agreement that says I'm wrong. I guarantee it's much different than a standard commercial lease with more stringent requirements. If Disney is making specific requirements then they have a duty to enforce them.
I appreciate your concerns, but truly: I owe you nothing. It takes very little integrity to make an uninformed allegation and then sit back with a smug look and a mug full of selfrighteousness decrying "prove me wrong".
Why don't you prove Legal Eagle wrong? It would without a doubt be more fruitful because I'm not entertaining it.
Then why did they attempt to invoke the terms of an unrelated service rather than having the case dismissed outright? Makes no sense.
Obviously I can't possibly speak as to why they chose to do what they did. But I would assume that making a motion to dismiss due to the fact that arbitration has already been agreed to (seemingly unrelated from your perspective but from a legal perspective is really the only substantive aspect, so wildly related) is far less scandalous than making a motion to dismiss with no recourse for the plaintiff at all and would be far more damaging to their reputation.
And that DOES make sense.
Right, but if they're not affiliated with the restaurant, then the restaurant doesn't fall under their tos, because they don't own it.
The restaurant isn't suing them, ding dong. The guy who consented to an arbitration agreement is. Jesus fuck, it is okay to be wrong. I know it sucks. It sucks even more to imagine that Disney might be doing something remotely respectable and have to admit that. But it's okay. I'm wrong all the time. I face it, accept it, learn from it, and move on.
When you are ready to move on, go for it.
So they're doing to arbitrate a case on behalf of the store? Makes no sense to think it applies to their arbitration agreement.