As I understand it, Disney really isn't in the wrong here. If there's any bad guy, it's the restaurant, which is technically only Disney's tenant. But Disney was named in the suit and their lawyers used castle doctrine when defending the company and no one thought they were going a bit far. Apparently no one on their legal team ever said, "hey, maybe we shouldn't use absolutely every weapon we have against this guy who was widowed on our property."

The New York Times -- a publication that all right-thinking people abhor, but that nonetheless has its uses -- does a little better explaining Disney's deceit.

Here is the response to the "we're just a landlord" argument:

She had chosen the restaurant, according to the complaint, because Disney had advertised its focus on accommodating people with allergies on its website.

And this is also an important point:

"Although Disney has withdrawn its motion, the arbitration clauses they relied upon in their motion still exist on their various platforms," Mr. Denney said. "This potentially puts other people injured by Disney's negligence at risk of facing a similar legal challenge."

I wonder how many cases Disney has successfully settled -- or otherwise disposed of -- by invoking arbitration.

castle doctrine

I like the idea of invoking this in the context of Disney, but isn't that only relevant if Disney had shot the victim?

I think I read that this poor woman was a doctor, so it seems like Any argument based on her negligence is going to be a difficult one to make.
And I read that the husbandis suing for $50,000,Which seems an inconsequential song compared to the loss that he and his family have suffered.

I guess Disney has more castles than most.

Disney fed a baby from Nebraska to an alligator.

husband is suing for $50,000

More correct to say "at least $50,000."

The NYT -- a fine periodical to which all good American should subscribe -- explains:

Mr. Piccolo is seeking damages over $50,000, the minimum required to file in Florida circuit court, but a jury could award much higher punitive damages, his lawyers said.