Disney’s legal team is seeking to dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit filed after a woman died from an allergic reaction at a Disney park, arguing that the case should be resolved outside of court. The company claims that the woman’s husband, Jeffrey Piccolo, unknowingly waived his right to sue when he accepted the terms of service while signing up for a Disney Plus trial years ago.
The lawsuit stems from the death of Kanokporn Tangsuan, a doctor at NYU Langone, who suffered a fatal allergic reaction after dining at Raglan Road Irish Pub, located in Disney Springs at Disney World, Florida. Despite reassurances from the waiter that the food was safe, Tangsuan collapsed and later died in a hospital, with the cause of death identified as anaphylaxis triggered by dairy and nuts.
READ MORE —Disney Cruise Line Reveals Plans for Four Additional Ships, Joining the Four Already on the Way
Piccolo’s lawsuit against Disney and Great Irish Pubs, the operator of the restaurant, seeks damages exceeding $50,000 for mental suffering, funeral, and medical expenses. The lawsuit argues that Disney should be held accountable, as the couple relied on Disney’s online map, which indicated the restaurant catered to those with allergies.
In response, Disney’s attorneys pointed out that Piccolo had agreed to an arbitration clause when he created a Disney Plus account in 2019, which included a waiver of the right to sue. Piccolo’s legal team countered, stating that it is unreasonable to expect someone to know that by agreeing to streaming service terms, they would be forfeiting the right to pursue legal action in the event of a tragic incident.
Legal experts, like contract law professor David Hoffman, suggest that Disney’s strategy could backfire, as it risks negative publicity over a case that may not justify the effort. The case also highlights the broader issue of mandatory arbitration clauses, which have increasingly restricted consumers’ and workers’ rights to seek legal redress in court. While Disney’s chances of enforcing arbitration in this case seem slim, the company’s use of such clauses in its terms of service underscores the complexities and often-overlooked implications of these agreements.
