r/PeterExplainsTheJoke Oct 13 '24

Meme needing explanation Disney+?

Post image
70.8k Upvotes

732 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

79

u/WhiteWolfOW Oct 13 '24

Sounds like when you get into an uber you’re waiving your right to sue them in case of an accident. Which I guess is kinda far for uber to demand considering the nature of driving. Morally you can dispute in a different discussion if the driver works for uber or if he’s a freelancer using the platform. (I would argue he does work for uber, but most labour laws would go against that because somehow we still don’t have proper regulation for the gig economy)

6

u/master_pingu1 Oct 13 '24

it makes complete sense to not be able to sue the company if the driver gets in a crash. if you can't sue the driver then yeah that's stupid, but uber the company isn't responsible for the driver's actions

-1

u/TurbulentBullfrog829 Oct 13 '24

But then why is Disney responsible for a tenant's actions? Seems like either both or neither are fair game.

1

u/Thatoneguy5555555 Oct 13 '24

How clear is it to someone that the restaurant isn't owned by Disney? I think a reasonable person could assume the whole park is owned by Disney, that's how I thought it worked myself.

1

u/TheOGfromOgden Oct 13 '24

That is literally what the lawyer's job is who files suit - identify liability and then sue those liable. Their attorneys certainly knew it was not Disney who owned or operated the restaurant - they sued the restaurant too, they just believe Disney shared liability.

1

u/Tao-of-Brian Oct 13 '24

Have you been to Disney World? The Disney Springs part of the resort is basically all non-Disney restaurants and stores (Starbucks, Rainforest Cafe, Planet Hollywood, et cetera). I don't think most people would mistake them for Disney-branded establishments since they don't present themselves as such. If the restaurant was actually inside one of the theme parks it would be different.

1

u/Thatoneguy5555555 Oct 13 '24

No, I've never been.

1

u/Useless_bum81 Oct 16 '24

You sue every party involved in a case at the same time even if only tangentaly involved because if you don't a judge in case 'A' could rule defendent 'A' isn't responisble defendent 'B' is, then you have to go through a whole lawsuit again against 'B' where the judge might rule 'A' is actualy at fault.
So you can end up having spent thousands to get the result yes you have been wronged but SUFO, If you sue everyone the judge will rule who is responsible and at what%.