A New York family mourns the loss of a well-loved doctor while taking legal action against Disney after their fatal allergic reaction at a Disney Springs restaurant in October 2023. Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, 42, died after having a meal that had both dairy and nuts at Raglan Road Irish Pub, even though she alerted staff to severe allergies.
A doctor died at a Disney Springs restaurant from an allergic reaction after being assured the meal was allergen-free
The widower then sued
Disney is now trying to dismiss the suit — arguing he agreed to arbitrate all disputes when signing up for a Disney+ free trial years… pic.twitter.com/uCPljTN6e3
— Culture Crave 🍿 (@CultureCrave) August 14, 2024
As a result of this tragic loss, Piccolo is now suing Disney for wrongful death, as he believes the restaurant’s negligence is at fault for prematurely taking his wife’s life. The lawsuit calls for over $50,000 in damages under Florida’s Wrongful Death Act and is composed of fair compensatory and more appropriate claims for pain and suffering, loss of companionship, life, and funeral expenses.
But it was given a strange twist after Disney lawyers tried to have the lawsuit dismissed due to an arbitration clause Piccolo had signed as a condition of the 2019 free Disney+ account she had opened to watch a particular television show. Ironically enough, Disney lawyers now argue the arbitration clause she signed with the streaming service covers any dispute with the company or its affiliates—including the wrongful death lawsuit.
This has been ferociously opposed by Piccolo’s legal team, which has lashed out against Disney’s stand as “preposterous.” It makes a case that applying the arbitration agreement of a subscription usage-based streaming service to a wrongful death claim is said to be unreal and undermines exactly the basis of justice. The lawyers defending Piccolo state that the scope of this arbitration clause cannot hold credence in a scenario where loved ones succumb in a vividly evident different context.
It is, therefore, the court’s judgment on whether to receive or decline to receive Disney’s motion to dismiss that shall have far-reaching effects not only for Piccolo and her daughter’s case but to cotton on precedent to the overall legal stage. The case poses a major problem to the extent and acknowledgment of arbitration clause, principally when stoned to the maximum dimension from their original target. If Disney’s argument is upheld, and there is no language limiting its application to the agreement in question, it will open the door for the presence of an arbitration clause in one agreement to be used in cases that bear no direct relation to the agreements in which they were originally embedded.
As the lawsuit continues, the case highlights attention that many experts have put into recognizing the potential harm from broadly written arbitration clauses on the ability of consumers to seek justice. For Piccolo and his daughter, this is not a case about the money; it is one about accountability to ensure no other family has to go through the same type of devastating loss.
