Disney Argues That It Cannot Be Sued in Wrongful Death Case Because of the Disney+ Terms and Conditions
Tragedy struck at Walt Disney World last year when Kanokporn Tangsuan, a doctor from Carle Place, New York, died after dining at Disney Springs’ Raglan Road Irish Pub.
According to a lawsuit filed in February, Dr. Tangsuan died after being served allergens that she was assured would not be present in her meal.
The incident occurred on October 5, 2023. According to the suit, Dr. Tangsuan was severely allergic to dairy and nuts but chose to dine at Raglan Road with her husband, Jeffrey Piccolo, because Disney stated that their restaurants accommodate people with allergies.
Image Credit: Disney
After confirming that the food was allergen-free, the couple dined at Raglan Road and then went shopping at Disney Springs. Dr. Tangsuan died in a hospital later that day.
The February filing by Piccolo says Tangsuan’s death was ruled to be the “result of anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nuts in her system” by a medical examiner.
Piccolo is suing for more than $50,000 plus legal fees.
Disney Wants the Case to be Sent to Arbitration
In the first major development of the case, since it was filed in February, Disney asked the court to halt the proceedings and have the parties settle their dispute out of court.
Photo: Disney
Disney argues that it can not be sued in court because the company’s terms of use require any disputes to be settled via arbitration.
Piccolo, Disney says, agreed to these terms when he signed up for a free trial of Disney+ in 2019 and again when he bought Walt Disney World theme park tickets in 2023.
The company would like the case to go to arbitration, as it would likely speed up and reduce the cost of the case. Arbitration would also keep the matter private.
Photo: Disney
“Disney understandably may want to benefit from the privacy and confidentiality that arbitration brings, rather than having a wrongful death suit heard in public with the associated publicity,” says Jamie Cartwright, partner at law firm Charles Russell Speechlys, told the BBC.
Piccolo’s Lawyers Blast Disney’s Motion
In response to Disney’s motion, Piccolo’s lawyers blasted the argument, calling it “inane.”
Photo: Miriam-Webster
They say the Disney argument “is based on the incredible argument that any person who signs up for a Disney+ account, even free trials that are not extended beyond the trial period, will have forever waived the right to a jury trial.”
That the terms could be extended to include a wrongful death or personal injury claim “borders on the surreal,” they continued.
Jeffrey Piccolo and Kanokporn Tangsuan. Photo: NY Times
Finally, Piccolo’s legal team argued that while he did agree to the terms for himself, he is now acting on half of his late wife, who never agreed to said terms.
A Judge Will Decide in October
While legal scholars have largely dismissed the Disney+ argument, many have said that the 2023 ticket purchase has more merit.
Photo: cba.cj
How the case moves forward will be determined by a Florida judge next month.
