I would imagine that any destabilization in the operations of a capitalist system benefits the worker. Sure, Winco makes more money today, giving them a false impression of scale. And after FM falls in line, we go after Winco, giving them an even more pronounced loss of capital. Even if nothing happens, you've still added volatility to the system. That's better than nothing.
ZMonster
joined 1 year ago
Lol, I thought it was just me. 😄
😊 Well, you might think so, but if that were true then their legal team would have to be unimaginably inept. Even small companies rely on arbitration clauses. A company the size of Disney probably has boilerplate arbitration clauses prolifically spread throughout any agreement they make. I don't imagine there's anything their legal team says more often when they are named in a suit than, "can we arbitrate?"
So, yes they were relying on a remote technicality to get out of the suit, but that's also the only reason they were named in the suit. I don't blame them. And they know they wouldn't be found liable. But they also know that people only remember "the mcdonalds hot coffee lawsuit" being about some unintelligent gold digging woman (which BTW is a travesty). So the settlement that they will likely offer is going to be worth far less than the damage from the bad rep of a trial like this.
Dude, here. Argue with LE about it if you're just going to rely on your own ill informed conjecture. I have no dog in the race and I couldn't care less.
Not everything is all or nothing. It's not that you either are completely liable or not liable at all. That's not how this works. If you are not liable at all, you should move to dismiss. The way this case was designed, based on the allegations, Disney does bear responsibility. But the allegations only include Disney in the most tenuous of ways. So a motion to dismiss would NOT have worked. But IMO, they are not liable at all. This was a restaurant that leased Disney land that screwed up. I can't see how Disney had anything to do with this at all.
I honestly don't think they hear ANY liability at all. This would be like saying your friend's landlord is at fault for your friend feeding you allergens because the landlord introduced you to each other. Like, sure, they're related, but by no stretch of the meaning of "obviously at fault". That's just ridiculous.
You're probably right. That's definitely how things are done in building and commercial industries that I know of so it's probably a standard practice system wide. Sure.
They are going after the restaurant. The restaurant is whom they are suing. But they know they won't get much from an allergy lawsuit settlement with an Irish Pub themed restaurant, so they included the deeper-pocket Disney in the suit (which IMO is a less than honorable act, but in a capitalist society I'm always going to give the benefit of the doubt to the person, also you never know if the legal system is going to choose you to fuck with so I dually recognize the spaghetti-at-the-wall approach to damage remuneration).
Even with that said though, since the guy who decided to risk a life-threatening condition on whether a likely not much more than minimum wage employee could or would know if a thing was allergen free decided to rely on a technicality of civil litigation to get more money, then I can't fault Disney for using a technicality to try to get out of it.
Fuck Disney in general, but kudos to Disney for taking this on the chin just to not make someone even a perceived victim of their greed. I think it's honestly respectable. They're still probably not going to be at fault were it to go to trial, but they're going to settle and give this guy the obvious payday he wanted.
💯 No doubt. They're merely pointing out that though the empirical winds of ignorance are currently blowing in our beneficial direction, it's still not a good idea to pee into it. Their change is not rooted in a newfound sense of humanity, empathy, or understanding. It's just the entitled temper tantrum du jour. They can still turn on the there-are-two-kinds-of-[nonwhite]-people heel midstream and now you're just peeing on yourself.
That's fucking hilarious. A whole country of cake eaters.
I work with people that really struggle to grasp this concept. I work rotations and every hitch I find myself spending the first few days explaining that what they call "the economy" I would call the CPI, whereas what capitalists refer to is corporate profits - and never the twain shall meet. But this is yet another complexity that the right benefits from obscuring, and complexity requires thoughtful consideration for understanding. I realize I'm asking a lot from a bunch of blue collar rubes.
No problem homie. We all got to eat.