• ZMonster@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      If they didn’t, they would have made a motion to dismiss because they bear no liability. They have an army of top tier lawyers, if they decided arguing something other than not having liability, that tells me they do, or, at very least, it would be hard to convince a court they don’t.

      • ZMonster@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.