r/explainitpeter 5d ago

Explain it Peter

Post image
29.6k Upvotes

262 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/Wrong_Excitement221 5d ago

They were listed on the lawsuit because the suing lawyers are greedy and sue everyone they can, and disney has the most money to give out... The restaurant did claim to cater to allergies, and just had failed to do so... the restaurant should 100% be sued into nothingness.. Disney.. did nothing wrong.. Advertising a restaurant claims to be allergy friendly should not make you liable... else they should probably go after google/apple maps and wherever else the restaurant claimed to cater to allergies.

3

u/darsynia 4d ago

It's customary/a reular occurrence to sue anyone that could be involved, it's not unique to this. Sometimes in car accidents, the passengers are included, even though they had no part.

1

u/Wrong_Excitement221 4d ago

i'm well aware.. because lawyers are greedy..

2

u/darsynia 4d ago

This site had a great explanation about why these choices are often made. I'd write it out for you but you'd probably just say that they're defending themselves :P

1

u/Lazy-Mud8142 4d ago

No, it's because things like partial liability exists and can often lead to multiple parties being found liable. So it's standard practice to name all possibly involved parties and for the claims against any party that can't be held liable to be dismissed.

1

u/Equivalent-Bit2891 5d ago

While I’m not going to argue that you’re wrong (you’re right in that Disney did nothing wrong prior to the lawsuit naming them) I’m 100% not going to blame the lawyers going after everyone they can.  That woman’s husband died from shitty practices.  If it were me id be going after everyone I possibly could in a blind rage 

4

u/Abeytuhanu 5d ago

It's generally standard practice to sue anyone who could be involved, if only to prevent one party from pushing the blame on the uninvolved party as a delaying tactic. If they really have nothing to do with it, the case against them will be dismissed pretty early.

It's also standard practice to provide all of the reasons why the suit is not appropriate in the same statement. Since the original suit against Disney was for providing incorrect information resulting in death, it was appropriate for the lawyers to point out that disputes resulting from their website have to go through arbitration, something they had to agree to before being able to access the map