834
US couple blocked from suing Uber after crash say daughter agreed to Uber Eats terms
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
834 points (99.4% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
9609 readers
667 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
--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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Disney may have abandoned this strategy with their wrongful death suit, but they pioneered it for other shitty companies. Great. This is reality now.
I realize that there is no way for me to argue this without sounding like some sort of neck beard corporate shill; but if you truly believe that the Disney+ debacle was at a basic level - Evil corporation uses despicable loophole to leave innocent widower stuck with the consequences of corporate negligence - then you really don't know anything about that case at all, and singing in harmony with the endless voices parroting the same misinformation is not something you should be proud of.
Fuck Disney, all day, every day, forever. No doubt. But they tried to use a tactic that was EVERY BIT as disgusting as the one that roped them into the lawsuit to begin with. It is extraordinarily likely that Disney was going to be released from that suit but after the PR spin, they decided to throw the guy a bone just to save face. We don't have to agree that Disney was somehow being magnanimous, but they chose to take one on the chin that apparently only they and Legal Eagle knew they would get out of.
I don't have a problem with people spitting at Disney, but at least do it for a truthful and reliable reason.
Your argument falls flat, because even interpreted in the best possible light, it only points out that the plaintiff's lawyer was sleazy, just like Disney's lawyers are. As if that somehow justifies the behavior.
But everyone already knows that liability is this weird area, where many of the lawyers appear kind of slimy, but even if they are, the outcome matters because the plaintiffs are normal people. That's not news. And if in fact Disney didn't have liability because their only connection was land ownership, as you claimed, of course the judge would have checked them from the case. There would have been no need for gamesmanship. There would have been no need to throw their reputation in the toilet. All of which is to say, if we interpret the facts generously to you and Disney, they still look terrible.
If you go to your friend's house for dinner and they end up giving you E Coli, do you sue their landlord? Because that is the situation you are glossing over by saying:
This is very reductive of the situation according to the plaintiff himself; which means you are either insincere or incapable. Either case leaves me entirely disinterested.
How is a private gift/shared activity subject to the same rules like a corporation selling you an item for profit?
I don't have health inspectors in my kitchen. I better hope restaurants have them regularly enough to enforce hygiene standards.
Disney also does not have health inspectors in another company's kitchen, because they don't own that fucking kitchen. Bro, you are arguing with a keyboard warrior on Lemmy. Your total lack of understanding is clearly established by both the raft of legal professionals who have already demonstrated the reality as well as THE PLAINTIFFS FUCKING FILING. So by all means, reach out to the plaintiff and explain to him and his lawyer how much more you know about it. ๐