Disney Tries to Dodge Wrongful Death Suit Over Epcot Ticket and Disney+ Trial
A widower suing Disney Parks and Resorts over the wrongful death of his wife is facing a legal challenge from the company. Disney is attempting to have the lawsuit dismissed and sent to arbitration, claiming that the widower's past use of Disney+ and purchase of Epcot tickets binds him to an arbitration agreement.
The lawsuit, which seeks damages exceeding £40,000, stems from the death of Kanokporn Tangsuan, who tragically died after experiencing a severe allergic reaction to food at Raglan Road Irish Pub in Disney Springs. Tangsuan, who had severe food allergies, had ordered a vegan meal at the restaurant, but the food contained dairy and nuts, despite repeated assurances from the waiter that it was allergen-free.
Jeffrey Piccolo, Tangsuan's husband, claims that Disney is responsible for the tragedy, as the couple chose to dine at Raglan Road because they believed the Disney-owned restaurant would have adequate safety measures in place to cater to his wife's allergies.
However, Disney is arguing that the lawsuit should be dismissed and sent to arbitration based on two key points:
Firstly, the company claims that Piccolo's one-month trial of Disney+ in 2019 subjected him to an arbitration agreement requiring him to resolve all disputes with the company through arbitration.
Secondly, Disney claims that Piccolo's purchase of Epcot tickets through their website also constitutes an agreement to arbitrate any claims against the company.
Piccolo's lawyer, Brian Denney, has vehemently denied these claims, calling them "preposterous" and "outrageously unreasonable." He argues that a free trial of Disney+ and a ticket purchase should not automatically bar someone from pursuing a wrongful death lawsuit against the company, especially when the case involves a completely different area of the Disney business.
Denney argues that Disney is attempting to unfairly exploit its massive customer base, effectively preventing millions of Disney+ subscribers from ever seeking redress through a jury trial, even in cases unrelated to the streaming service.
Disney, however, has maintained that it is simply defending itself against the lawsuit and that the restaurant is not owned or operated by the company. They have expressed condolences to the family and expressed understanding for their grief.
The case highlights the growing trend of companies using arbitration agreements to avoid court proceedings and limit their liability. This case is expected to have significant implications for consumer rights and the role of arbitration in resolving disputes between individuals and corporations.
This legal battle is likely to continue, with the outcome potentially setting a precedent for how companies can utilise terms and conditions to limit their legal responsibility in the future.
