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.
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.
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.
If they only bore a small liability, they would have just had their legal team reseach what the person suing would most likely get, then provide that information, and an offer based on that information, before doing anything else. You know, like what normally happens when a company gets sued. The fact that they went straight to some hail mary strategy tells me they believe they are on the hook for big money, or will have a hard time proving they aren’t.
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.
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.
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.
If they only bore a small liability, they would have just had their legal team reseach what the person suing would most likely get, then provide that information, and an offer based on that information, before doing anything else. You know, like what normally happens when a company gets sued. The fact that they went straight to some hail mary strategy tells me they believe they are on the hook for big money, or will have a hard time proving they aren’t.
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.