"All I wanted was have a site I can turn on and ignore my kids for a bit, I didn't know I signed the right to face Disney hit squads to kill me because I didn't want them trans'ing my kids!' /s
This will be another example of where ToS means SHIT in an actual court of law. Even commieforna wouldn't want to side with Disney on this for the extremely bad precedent.
OK, from the perspective of "Throw every possible defense at the wall and see what sticks", I get it. But you have to have less empathy than chan autists to think that this strategy gets you anywhere. They must be planning to settle, because if the plaintiff's attorney gets the fact that The Mouse tried to get a wrongful death suit tossed based on a Disney+ contract before a jury, the Fed is going to have to print more money just to pay the damages.
It's one thing not to surrender to every lawsuit & try to settle out of court as that just encourages frivolous lawsuits. But to not try and settle a meager 50k for a wrongful DEATH (assuming this case has any merit at all) is crazy.
The physician, who had worked Manhattan’s NYU Langone hospital, had repeatedly stressed to wait staff that she had nut and dairy allergies when she ordered scallops, onion rings, broccoli and corn fritters, according to the filing.
If she told wait staff once and you can find 1 witness to testify to that, they're pretty screwed. I'd go for the goodwill and agree to the 50k or if being a bit of a dick try to reduce it to 40...it's not like a bunch of people are going to kill their spouses (or spouses will agree to die) so they can sue Disney for a year's salary.
To a jaded wait staff, "allergies" is code for "I'm a giant picky baby using the magic word to be super-duper sure". Even if the wait staff were earnest and cared, good luck dealing with the illegal kitchen staff who can't read and promptly forget the verbal explanation because there's 11 orders in front of that one customer's.
Yeah, my power went out for a couple days from severe storms the other week and I got burgers for the first time in a while. Three guys were back there, it wasn't even that busy, and they somehow gave me the wrong order. I came out ahead, I got someone's bacon cheeseburger, the other guy must have gotten my plain hamburger. Were I lactose intolerant or some pagan who isn't allowed to eat pork that would have been bad. I gotta say though, if I had severe allergies where I could fucking die if I ate the wrong thing, I would never eat something someone else prepared.
That's how it's always looked to me. I bet nearly everyone has some sort of food they are sensitive to if they really think about it. I can't do shellfish. I don't think I've ever told a restaurant. I have asked things like, "hey can I get something other than shrimp in this," particularly something like where there's some shrimp on the side. If they say yes, great! It's honestly more of the notion of I'd rather not toss some perfectly good food they could have just left unprepared in the kitchen. If I order something with it in it accidentally, I pick the fuck around it. Big deal.
If you've really got a keel over and die food allergy, I would suggest learning to cook. I'd also suggest looking into some sort of allergy therapy because I've seen enough things that it's possible to get to where you could at least be around it. I don't want to hear some bullshit, "you can't open a package of peanuts near me or I'll die."
Arbitration is a superior form of dispute resolution, given one simple condition: that the arbitrator is impartial, and both parties trust the arbitrator to be so (OK, maybe that's two simple conditions, or one complex one, but you get my point.)
Our current system of binding arbitration ensures this condition is not met, and encourages people to take their disputes before the state, where one or both parties will, at best, waste several thousand dollars to resolve the dispute, and at worst will end up with the boot of the state on their necks to provide 'restitution' to the other party. Given these two options, you're going to see more and more people deciding to take the third option of exacting 'justice' themselves, and it won't be pretty.
It structurally favors the sophisticated party to a degree that I don't feel is (inherently) present in private arbitration.
Its edicts are backed by the overwhelming capability for violence of the state. As a rule, I avoid interactions with the state as much as possible for this reason.
It completely eliminates the ability of the parties to choose an arbitrator that both find acceptable. The state picks one for you.
I don't think the advantages it provides are worth all that much in civil cases, but I'm very open to other opinions on the topic.
In all fairness, if I was a lawyer getting paid millions of dollars per year to defend corporate clients, I'd do the same thing. I would use every legal tool at my disposal to win.
Now, if any judge decides that a disney+ trial agreement invalidates any lawsuit against them, they would deserve to be removed from office. It's not wrong for the lawyer to try, but it's wrong if the judge allows it.
An example I'd offer is this: if the tax code sucks and Trump can pay 0 in taxes every year through legal means, he'd be an idiot not to take advantage of it. As long as what he's doing is legal, it's not his fault...it's the fault of whoever allowed the situation in the first place.
There are obviously practical issues with making it an illegal strategy, but a lawyer should not knowingly make frivolous legal arguments any more than they should file frivolous lawsuits. Morally speaking, making a legal argument you know is false for tactical benefit should get you smacked down.
I agree with you regarding frivolity. I just think that a lawyer is obligated to give his employer the best defense possible within the confines of the law.
If we punished lawyers for frivolous behavior, I don't think these lawyers would be doing this. I think it would be wrong to punish them for something that we currently tolerate. If your solution is to make it illegal, or at least punishable, I'm 100 percent for it
That's just stupid. Say shit like that, and people are going to start suggesting punitive damages delivered by firing squad. At most you should be arguing that although you've tried to accommodate the needs of an allergic person, at the end of the day it's a public restaurant and you cannot completely remove the possibility of cross-contamination.
"All I wanted was have a site I can turn on and ignore my kids for a bit, I didn't know I signed the right to face Disney hit squads to kill me because I didn't want them trans'ing my kids!' /s
This will be another example of where ToS means SHIT in an actual court of law. Even commieforna wouldn't want to side with Disney on this for the extremely bad precedent.
He will settle for an undisclosed amount and no admission of wrong doing before any jurisprudence is established.
A tale as old as time.
... isn't this a South Park episode from like, 15 years ago?
"Human Cent-iPad"
...Fuck, we really do live in Clown World, don't we?
So lazy and uncreative even their evil schemes are lifted from popular media.
Yet another live-action reboot noone asked for.
SIMPSONS DID IT!
South Park also had Macho Man Tranny Savage box the snot out of a woman, and win 1st place.
OK, from the perspective of "Throw every possible defense at the wall and see what sticks", I get it. But you have to have less empathy than chan autists to think that this strategy gets you anywhere. They must be planning to settle, because if the plaintiff's attorney gets the fact that The Mouse tried to get a wrongful death suit tossed based on a Disney+ contract before a jury, the Fed is going to have to print more money just to pay the damages.
It's one thing not to surrender to every lawsuit & try to settle out of court as that just encourages frivolous lawsuits. But to not try and settle a meager 50k for a wrongful DEATH (assuming this case has any merit at all) is crazy.
If she told wait staff once and you can find 1 witness to testify to that, they're pretty screwed. I'd go for the goodwill and agree to the 50k or if being a bit of a dick try to reduce it to 40...it's not like a bunch of people are going to kill their spouses (or spouses will agree to die) so they can sue Disney for a year's salary.
To a jaded wait staff, "allergies" is code for "I'm a giant picky baby using the magic word to be super-duper sure". Even if the wait staff were earnest and cared, good luck dealing with the illegal kitchen staff who can't read and promptly forget the verbal explanation because there's 11 orders in front of that one customer's.
Yeah, my power went out for a couple days from severe storms the other week and I got burgers for the first time in a while. Three guys were back there, it wasn't even that busy, and they somehow gave me the wrong order. I came out ahead, I got someone's bacon cheeseburger, the other guy must have gotten my plain hamburger. Were I lactose intolerant or some pagan who isn't allowed to eat pork that would have been bad. I gotta say though, if I had severe allergies where I could fucking die if I ate the wrong thing, I would never eat something someone else prepared.
That's how it's always looked to me. I bet nearly everyone has some sort of food they are sensitive to if they really think about it. I can't do shellfish. I don't think I've ever told a restaurant. I have asked things like, "hey can I get something other than shrimp in this," particularly something like where there's some shrimp on the side. If they say yes, great! It's honestly more of the notion of I'd rather not toss some perfectly good food they could have just left unprepared in the kitchen. If I order something with it in it accidentally, I pick the fuck around it. Big deal.
If you've really got a keel over and die food allergy, I would suggest learning to cook. I'd also suggest looking into some sort of allergy therapy because I've seen enough things that it's possible to get to where you could at least be around it. I don't want to hear some bullshit, "you can't open a package of peanuts near me or I'll die."
A year? Depending on her specific job, that's likely to be closer to a couple months in New York than it is a year.
I meant as like an average salary. The fact he wasn't even asking 1 yr of her salary (probably less than makes this even worse.
Holy shit I just googled it: Average NYU Langone Health Physician yearly pay in the United States is approximately $238,856.
20%. TWENTY FUCKING PERCENT OF THE DEAD WOMAN'S SALARY and they still played the "but you subscribed to Disney+!" excuse. Retarded.
Arbitration is a superior form of dispute resolution, given one simple condition: that the arbitrator is impartial, and both parties trust the arbitrator to be so (OK, maybe that's two simple conditions, or one complex one, but you get my point.)
Our current system of binding arbitration ensures this condition is not met, and encourages people to take their disputes before the state, where one or both parties will, at best, waste several thousand dollars to resolve the dispute, and at worst will end up with the boot of the state on their necks to provide 'restitution' to the other party. Given these two options, you're going to see more and more people deciding to take the third option of exacting 'justice' themselves, and it won't be pretty.
My problem with the court system is threefold:
I don't think the advantages it provides are worth all that much in civil cases, but I'm very open to other opinions on the topic.
"Actually, you signed over your firstborn son when you subscribed to Amazon Prime and agreed to the TOS."
The lawyers that filed this motion should be disbarred.
In all fairness, if I was a lawyer getting paid millions of dollars per year to defend corporate clients, I'd do the same thing. I would use every legal tool at my disposal to win.
Now, if any judge decides that a disney+ trial agreement invalidates any lawsuit against them, they would deserve to be removed from office. It's not wrong for the lawyer to try, but it's wrong if the judge allows it.
An example I'd offer is this: if the tax code sucks and Trump can pay 0 in taxes every year through legal means, he'd be an idiot not to take advantage of it. As long as what he's doing is legal, it's not his fault...it's the fault of whoever allowed the situation in the first place.
There are obviously practical issues with making it an illegal strategy, but a lawyer should not knowingly make frivolous legal arguments any more than they should file frivolous lawsuits. Morally speaking, making a legal argument you know is false for tactical benefit should get you smacked down.
I agree with you regarding frivolity. I just think that a lawyer is obligated to give his employer the best defense possible within the confines of the law.
If we punished lawyers for frivolous behavior, I don't think these lawyers would be doing this. I think it would be wrong to punish them for something that we currently tolerate. If your solution is to make it illegal, or at least punishable, I'm 100 percent for it
They should be publicly flogged or thrown in the stockades.
just fucking nuke tos already. they're all fake and gay.
That's just stupid. Say shit like that, and people are going to start suggesting punitive damages delivered by firing squad. At most you should be arguing that although you've tried to accommodate the needs of an allergic person, at the end of the day it's a public restaurant and you cannot completely remove the possibility of cross-contamination.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Removed for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Claiming jews as a race seek to kill people and be corrupt