Everything About the Disney Wrongful Death Lawsuit, Whereby Disney No Longer Use Disney+ As a “Reason”

By
Ryan Low
-

Disney should know happen when legal meets PR.

Disney has waived its right to rely on an arbitration clause in relation to a wrongful death lawsuit.

Jeffrey Piccolo had brought a wrongful death action after his wife Kanokporn Tangsuan died of anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nut in her system after a meal at Disney World in Florida.

Previously, Disney had filed a defence arguing that Mr Piccolo was bound to bring his claim to arbitration pursuant to the terms of his Disney+ Agreement.

Yes, Disney+, the streaming service.

However, following public backlash, Disney released a statement to Reuters stating that “We believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss”, and in turn “decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court”.

So, what happened?

The Lawsuit

The couple, alongside Piccolo’s mother, had eaten at Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant on October 5, 2023, allegedly selecting the eatery because Disney had marked it as allergy-friendly on the park’s map.

The Raglan Road Restaurant also advertised themselves as providing a service for diners with allergies to consult with a chef or specially trained staff member.

Ms Tangsuan had allegedly informed the waiter of her allergies and inquired into the existence of allergens in various items on the menu.

According to the lawsuit, when the food arrived, it did not have certain allergen-free flags and the couple once again questioned the waiter who assured them that it was allergen-free.

Shortly after the dinner, Tangsuan began facing various breathing difficulties and collapsed on the floor. She administered an epi-pen before 911 was called but eventually passed at the hospital.

He sought $50,000 for medical expenses, funeral costs and mental suffering.

Disney’s Reliance on the Arbitration Clause

Disney argued that Piccolo ‘s entry into the Disney+ Subscriber Agreement also amounted to an agreement to Disney Terms of Use, which contained a binding arbitration provision.

As such, the lawsuit should be brought in arbitration instead and the domestic court should stay the present proceedings for determination by an arbitral tribunal.

Arbitration is a process where two parties in a dispute agree to have their issue resolved by an impartial third person, called an arbitrator, instead of going to court. The arbitrator listens to both sides, reviews the evidence, and then makes a decision, which is usually binding. This means the decision is final and must be followed. Arbitration is often faster and less formal than court proceeding, and most importantly, it is also not public.

In the alternative, Disney also argued that agreement to the My Disney Experience Terms and Conditions applicable to the Walt Disney World website (Disneyworld.disney.go.com) and the My Disney Experience mobile app also amount to an agreement to Disney Terms of Use.

Prior to the withdrawal, Piccolo had challenged Disney’s reliance on the Disney+ agreement on the basis that Disney+ was a separate entity from the Walt Disney Company (the party to Disney’s Terms of Use), and thus limited to use of the Disney+ service.

As for the My Disney Experience Terms and Conditions, Piccolo’s lawyers argued that the arbitration provision in the Terms of Use cannot be relied on because it would conflict with an express provision in the My Disney Experience Terms and Conditions for disputes to be resolved in the Orange County Courts.

Watch this for a complete summary of what REALLY happened to Qoo10, and why it's like a K-drama:

Read Also:

Advertisements
 
Ryan Low