Disney says husband can’t sue over wife’s wrongful death – because he signed up to Disney+ trial (2 Viewers)

[faceman]

I honestly think I would stop eating out if I had severe food allergies.

This.

I was in food service for many years. I can tell you management and employees are very
aware of nut and seafood allergies. These can cause a fatal reaction. It's nearly impossible to know
every ingredient that goes in a recipe. The safest bet is too cook all of your food at home.

 

[St. Widge]

Public outrage apparently played a role

Disney backtracks on wrongful death lawsuit after public fury

Disney had argued the widower's Disney+ contract would prevent the dispute reaching court.

www.newsweek.com

Hooray for mob rule and the tranny of the majority.

It was a dumb defense by Disney, but as I speculated above, I doubt they had any real intent of pursuing this and it likely never would have even been brought up in Court. It's crappy report that resulted in this even being an issue.

 

[St. Widge]

I dont think Disney takes on liability for every third-party vendors operating on Disney property - that would be highly undesirable and it’s just not necessary. That’s not the default legal result so why would Disney create that exposure by highly regulating each vendor to the extent that Disney takes on responsibility?

That would have to be created in the agreement between Disney and the vendor and I just doubt that Disney is agreeing to that level of inspection and regulation of the restaurant.

Agreed. And, I'm no expert in commercial leases, but I would bet that the lease agreement with Disney required the restaurant to get insurance, name Disney as an additional insured, and indemnify Disney from any claims for the fault or negligence of the restaurant.

 

[Optimus Prime]

 

[Optimus Prime]

 

[Optimus Prime]

And from the "latency" of the attack ( from time of eating then going shopping etc ) that sounds exactly like the NUT allergen- insidious in that regard.
My child luckily outgrew her peanut/tree nut allergy- Dr. El-Dar drilled into us from day 1 that THE NUT allergic reaction can set in 4-6 HRS AFTER INGESTION ( her Milk allergy will be instantaneous ) Ugh i cant tell you how many times we would eat at kids party or some place new and literally be on edge for 4-6 hrs after.

I don’t know that

Why would there be such a long delay?

I would think if you’re allergic to something you’d have a reaction almost immediately and not hours later

And I’m sure this has been mentioned before over the years but is it me or are allergic reactions more severe now?

It seems to me that when I was a kid if someone was allergic to peanuts and were exposed to some they got a skin rash, or very upset stomach

Now it’s like ‘we need to go to the ER now’

I don’t know if they are a national chain or regional but I don’t know how Five Guys Burgers is able to have that giant open box of peanuts in all their locations

 

[Optimus Prime]

 

[Optimus Prime]

Similar situation
============
A New Jersey couple seriously injured when their Uber driver ran a red light and collided with another car has lost a bid to take legal action against the company in court.

John McGinty and Georgia McGinty argue Uber is enforcing an arbitration agreement after their daughter clicked “agree” when presented with updated terms and conditions while ordering food via her mom’s Uber Eats account.

Uber says that Georgia McGinty’s account on its app received a “full-screen pop-up” on several occasions, which required the user to accept updated terms of use before accessing its service.

It comes amid heightened scrutiny around the terms of leading tech platforms. This summer Disney faced a backlash after its attorneys initially argued the terms and conditions a widower agreed to on the Disney+ streaming service protected the company from a wrongful death lawsuit he brought over his wife’s death after eating at a Disney World restaurant.

Last month, a New Jersey court of appeals sided with Uber against the McGintys, allowing the ride-hailing and delivery company to enforce an arbitration agreement requiring the couple to arbitrate their personal injury claims, rather than litigating them in court.

The court’s opinion, issued on 20 September, stated that the arbitration provision contained in Uber’s terms and conditions was “valid and enforceable”, despite the couple’s claims that it was their daughter who clicked agree to the updated terms of use months before their accident. Uber says Georgia McGinty had also previously agreed to the terms.

John McGinty and Georgia McGinty were seriously injured in March 2022, according to court documents, suffering fractures and other physical injuries, as well as psychological, and financial damages. About a year later, the couple filed a complaint against Uber.

In a statement to the Guardian, the McGintys said they were “surprised and heartbroken” by the appellate court’s ruling, which they said had “exacerbated the pain and suffering” they had experienced since the collision.


The couple added that they were “horrified” that a large corporation like Uber could “avoid being sued in a court of law by injured consumers because of contractual language buried in a dozen-page-long user agreement concerning services unrelated to the one that caused the consumers’ injuries.”

They said: “Dozens of pages on an iPhone screen during a food delivery order make it impossible that anyone could understand what rights they were potentially waiving or how drastic the consequences could be.”

---

Uber responded to the couple’s complaint by attempting to enforce arbitration and dismiss the case, citing Georgia McGinty’s agreement to Uber’s terms and conditions several months before the accident, which included an arbitration clause.

The court ruling, issued last week, states that Uber updated its terms of use in December 2021, and that Georgia McGinty – who has used Uber since 2015 for both Uber rides and Uber Eats – was presented with a “click-wrap” agreement on her Uber app in January 2022, with the updated terms for her to agree to, including the arbitration clause.

Uber’s records show that someone using Georgia McGinty’s account checked boxes that day – which indicated that she had reviewed and agreed to the updated terms, was at least 18 years old – and clicked “confirm”.

Attorneys representing the McGintys claim that the couple does not recall seeing the “click box” on the date in question, 8 January, however – and surmise their daughter, who was a minor at the time, must have clicked it while monitoring a food delivery from Uber Eats that evening, as the parents packed for a ski trip.

The McGintys remember their daughter asking if they could order food and say their daughter – either with or without the assistance of Georgia McGinty – did so. She then monitored the delivery’s progress on her mother’s phone, which is when Uber says the checkbox consent was given.…….

US couple blocked from suing Uber after crash say daughter agreed to terms while using Uber Eats

New Jersey appeals court sides with ride-hailing company, saying arbitration provision in terms was ‘valid’

www.theguardian.com

 

[bigdaddysaints]

i agree thats a grey line situation. Do Uber Drivers have to carry special insurance on top of their regular insurance? are Uber drivers considered employees or contractors? I know we deal with a lot of Hot Shot Drivers here, they technically are independant contractors that work for the Hot Shot company. I do know they carry sperate insurance, but i think it only covers the cargo/items they are transporting.

In a time when you hear so many people yelling about people being sue happy, but the same ones will cry foul in situations like this.
I have no doubt that isn't the first time someone has gone after Uber for an accident, I would assume there is precidence.
I hope they get what they deserve. stuff like this can be a total loss for people because of medical expenses.

 

[superchuck500]

Similar situation
============
A New Jersey couple seriously injured when their Uber driver ran a red light and collided with another car has lost a bid to take legal action against the company in court.

John McGinty and Georgia McGinty argue Uber is enforcing an arbitration agreement after their daughter clicked “agree” when presented with updated terms and conditions while ordering food via her mom’s Uber Eats account.

Uber says that Georgia McGinty’s account on its app received a “full-screen pop-up” on several occasions, which required the user to accept updated terms of use before accessing its service.

It comes amid heightened scrutiny around the terms of leading tech platforms. This summer Disney faced a backlash after its attorneys initially argued the terms and conditions a widower agreed to on the Disney+ streaming service protected the company from a wrongful death lawsuit he brought over his wife’s death after eating at a Disney World restaurant.

Last month, a New Jersey court of appeals sided with Uber against the McGintys, allowing the ride-hailing and delivery company to enforce an arbitration agreement requiring the couple to arbitrate their personal injury claims, rather than litigating them in court.

The court’s opinion, issued on 20 September, stated that the arbitration provision contained in Uber’s terms and conditions was “valid and enforceable”, despite the couple’s claims that it was their daughter who clicked agree to the updated terms of use months before their accident. Uber says Georgia McGinty had also previously agreed to the terms.

John McGinty and Georgia McGinty were seriously injured in March 2022, according to court documents, suffering fractures and other physical injuries, as well as psychological, and financial damages. About a year later, the couple filed a complaint against Uber.

In a statement to the Guardian, the McGintys said they were “surprised and heartbroken” by the appellate court’s ruling, which they said had “exacerbated the pain and suffering” they had experienced since the collision.


The couple added that they were “horrified” that a large corporation like Uber could “avoid being sued in a court of law by injured consumers because of contractual language buried in a dozen-page-long user agreement concerning services unrelated to the one that caused the consumers’ injuries.”

They said: “Dozens of pages on an iPhone screen during a food delivery order make it impossible that anyone could understand what rights they were potentially waiving or how drastic the consequences could be.”

---

Uber responded to the couple’s complaint by attempting to enforce arbitration and dismiss the case, citing Georgia McGinty’s agreement to Uber’s terms and conditions several months before the accident, which included an arbitration clause.

The court ruling, issued last week, states that Uber updated its terms of use in December 2021, and that Georgia McGinty – who has used Uber since 2015 for both Uber rides and Uber Eats – was presented with a “click-wrap” agreement on her Uber app in January 2022, with the updated terms for her to agree to, including the arbitration clause.

Uber’s records show that someone using Georgia McGinty’s account checked boxes that day – which indicated that she had reviewed and agreed to the updated terms, was at least 18 years old – and clicked “confirm”.

Attorneys representing the McGintys claim that the couple does not recall seeing the “click box” on the date in question, 8 January, however – and surmise their daughter, who was a minor at the time, must have clicked it while monitoring a food delivery from Uber Eats that evening, as the parents packed for a ski trip.

The McGintys remember their daughter asking if they could order food and say their daughter – either with or without the assistance of Georgia McGinty – did so. She then monitored the delivery’s progress on her mother’s phone, which is when Uber says the checkbox consent was given.…….

US couple blocked from suing Uber after crash say daughter agreed to terms while using Uber Eats

New Jersey appeals court sides with ride-hailing company, saying arbitration provision in terms was ‘valid’

www.theguardian.com

That’s also different - it’s still a contract of adhesion but the incident arises directly from the service agreement that includes the clause.

 

[efil4stnias]

i agree thats a grey line situation. Do Uber Drivers have to carry special insurance on top of their regular insurance? are Uber drivers considered employees or contractors? I know we deal with a lot of Hot Shot Drivers here, they technically are independant contractors that work for the Hot Shot company. I do know they carry sperate insurance, but i think it only covers the cargo/items they are transporting.

In a time when you hear so many people yelling about people being sue happy, but the same ones will cry foul in situations like this.
I have no doubt that isn't the first time someone has gone after Uber for an accident, I would assume there is precidence.
I hope they get what they deserve. stuff like this can be a total loss for people because of medical expenses.

Depends on the terms of the employment contract that defines who is responsible for what.

Typically Uber drivers are treated as "contract carriers"- in that when they are "pulling a load" they are insured thru the company that hired them ( Uber in this case ) HOWEVER, when they are sitting around waiting for a fare ( or grabbing something to eat, cruising around waiting for fare etc - basically ANY time they have NO ONE paying for ride in the vehicle ) they are NOT covered by Uber's $1,000,000 CSL coverage.

I could get into the weeds about Hot Shots/Common carriers/Contract Carriers- but that will seriously muck up this thread ( and it can be complicated based on the contract ) - so ill just say that a Hot Shot is not like Uber- UNLESS that Hot Shot works for a larger "Hot Shot company" ( like Acme ) but even then, they must read the employment contracts insurance provisions to fully determine who is responsible for what.

ill end with this- Liability almost ALWAYS rolls "downhill" when it comes to contractual arrangements for contract carriers.

PS one more aspect that is given little consideration- Uber drivers- ANYONE with a Class E license ( your everyday typical license ) can drive for Uber. Most other professions require Class B ( Chauffeur ) or Class D ( CDL ) which requires additional instruction to obtain.

So Uber is going to make DANG sure that their exposure ( liability ) is as limited as their attorneys can make it. NTTAWT

 

[bclemms]

Reall

Similar situation
============
A New Jersey couple seriously injured when their Uber driver ran a red light and collided with another car has lost a bid to take legal action against the company in court.

John McGinty and Georgia McGinty argue Uber is enforcing an arbitration agreement after their daughter clicked “agree” when presented with updated terms and conditions while ordering food via her mom’s Uber Eats account.

Uber says that Georgia McGinty’s account on its app received a “full-screen pop-up” on several occasions, which required the user to accept updated terms of use before accessing its service.

It comes amid heightened scrutiny around the terms of leading tech platforms. This summer Disney faced a backlash after its attorneys initially argued the terms and conditions a widower agreed to on the Disney+ streaming service protected the company from a wrongful death lawsuit he brought over his wife’s death after eating at a Disney World restaurant.

Last month, a New Jersey court of appeals sided with Uber against the McGintys, allowing the ride-hailing and delivery company to enforce an arbitration agreement requiring the couple to arbitrate their personal injury claims, rather than litigating them in court.

The court’s opinion, issued on 20 September, stated that the arbitration provision contained in Uber’s terms and conditions was “valid and enforceable”, despite the couple’s claims that it was their daughter who clicked agree to the updated terms of use months before their accident. Uber says Georgia McGinty had also previously agreed to the terms.

John McGinty and Georgia McGinty were seriously injured in March 2022, according to court documents, suffering fractures and other physical injuries, as well as psychological, and financial damages. About a year later, the couple filed a complaint against Uber.

In a statement to the Guardian, the McGintys said they were “surprised and heartbroken” by the appellate court’s ruling, which they said had “exacerbated the pain and suffering” they had experienced since the collision.


The couple added that they were “horrified” that a large corporation like Uber could “avoid being sued in a court of law by injured consumers because of contractual language buried in a dozen-page-long user agreement concerning services unrelated to the one that caused the consumers’ injuries.”

They said: “Dozens of pages on an iPhone screen during a food delivery order make it impossible that anyone could understand what rights they were potentially waiving or how drastic the consequences could be.”

---

Uber responded to the couple’s complaint by attempting to enforce arbitration and dismiss the case, citing Georgia McGinty’s agreement to Uber’s terms and conditions several months before the accident, which included an arbitration clause.

The court ruling, issued last week, states that Uber updated its terms of use in December 2021, and that Georgia McGinty – who has used Uber since 2015 for both Uber rides and Uber Eats – was presented with a “click-wrap” agreement on her Uber app in January 2022, with the updated terms for her to agree to, including the arbitration clause.

Uber’s records show that someone using Georgia McGinty’s account checked boxes that day – which indicated that she had reviewed and agreed to the updated terms, was at least 18 years old – and clicked “confirm”.

Attorneys representing the McGintys claim that the couple does not recall seeing the “click box” on the date in question, 8 January, however – and surmise their daughter, who was a minor at the time, must have clicked it while monitoring a food delivery from Uber Eats that evening, as the parents packed for a ski trip.

The McGintys remember their daughter asking if they could order food and say their daughter – either with or without the assistance of Georgia McGinty – did so. She then monitored the delivery’s progress on her mother’s phone, which is when Uber says the checkbox consent was given.…….

US couple blocked from suing Uber after crash say daughter agreed to terms while using Uber Eats

New Jersey appeals court sides with ride-hailing company, saying arbitration provision in terms was ‘valid’

www.theguardian.com

Really slippery slope and hate this ruling.

 

[staphory]

Companies requiring arbitration has gotten out of hand.

 

[St. Widge]

Companies requiring arbitration has gotten out of hand.

I mean, arbitration isn't the worst thing in the world. It's just cheaper and less chance for outlandish results for both sides. It's not like arbitration bars someone from recovering for damages.

And frankly you can often get an arbitration set before you can get a case set for trial in state courts and some Federal courts.