Can Disney+ Terms Waive Rights in Wrongful Death Cases?

A physician from New York City died shortly after eating at a Disney World restaurant that failed to accommodate their food allergies.

Dr Kanokporn “Amy” Tangsuan, a physician at NYU Langone Hospital, visited Raglan Road Irish Pub in Disney Springs on October 5. She was accompanied by her husband, Jeffrey Piccolo, and her mother-in-law.

Tangsuan informed the waiter about her severe allergies to nuts and dairy, according to the lawsuit filed by Piccolo on Thursday. She also asked the server to confirm if certain menu items could be served without causing any allergy reaction.

According to court documents, Raglan Road and Disney both promote that they can accommodate guests with specific dietary requirements. According to reports, the waiter verified with the cook that Tangsuan’s meal could be prepared without allergens. Tangsuan ordered onion rings, scallops, broccoli and corn fritter. The lawsuit notes that the waiter “unambiguously guaranteed them that the meal would be allergen-free.”

The lawsuit claims some did not have allergen-free flags after the waiter returned Kanokporn Tangsuan’s food. As a result, Kanokporn Tangsuan and Jeffrey Piccolo questioned the waiter once more, and the waiter once more confirmed that the food was free of allergens.

But 45 minutes after Tangsuan finished her meal, she was by herself in a nearby store when she began experiencing serious allergic reactions to the food and used her EpiPen to treat herself. She started having breathing problems and passed out before someone could call 911 and take her to the hospital.

Later, Tangsuan passed away in the hospital. According to the lawsuit, she died “as a result of anaphylactic shock associated with elevated amounts of nut and dairy in her system.”

The $50,000 Lawsuit Against Disney+ for Negligence

Piccolo seeks $50,000 in damages from the eatery and Walt Disney Parks under Florida’s wrongful death act. This includes compensation for emotional distress, lost wages, burial, and medical costs.

The lawsuit alleges that Disney attempted to train its staff to prepare allergen-free food, while Disney is pushing for arbitration, arguing that Piccolo accepted the “Subscriber Agreement,” which includes a “Binding Arbitration and Class Action Waiver.”

Additionally, Disney asserts that Piccolo agreed to the same arbitration terms when purchasing park tickets in September 2023, as outlined in the “Walt Disney World terms.”

Legal Dispute: Disney+ Terms Inhibit The lawsuit

Disney requests the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Jeffrey Piccolo, the spouse of Kanokporn Tangsuan, a family medicine specialist employed at NYU Langone’s Carle Place, Long Island, office.

Piccolo’s attorney responded that it is “absurd” to think Disney+ subscribers permanently waived their right to sue.

Brian Denney, Piccolo’s attorney, stated in the August 2 filing that “this court should not enforce such an agreement.” He also argues that it is “so outrageously unreasonable and unfair as to shock the judicial conscience” that terms consented to by a customer when obtaining a Disney+ free trial profile would always bar that consumer’s right to a jury trial in any dispute with any Disney affiliate or subsidiary.

In a filing dated May 31, Disney argued that it is “immaterial” whether Piccolo reviewed the service terms. The company further stated that “all disputes,” including those involving The Walt Disney Company or its affiliates, are covered by the agreement.

Mr. Piccolo wants the lawsuit to be tried by a jury in a court of law. A Florida judge will hear Disney’s request to have the matter arbitrated rather than tried in court in October.

By using arbitration, a neutral third party who isn’t a judge will preside over the disagreement. In most cases, it is a less expensive and faster process than going to court. 

Piccolo’s Lawyer Respond to the Lawsuit Dismissal

The legal filing argues that extending arbitration to personal injury or wrongful death claims “borders on the surreal.” Piccolo’s legal team argues that while he accepted Disney’s conditions, his late wife never agreed. Ernest Aduwa, a partner at Stokoe Partnership Solicitors, says Disney is “pushing the limits of contract law.”

Aduwa adds, “Courts must determine if a streaming service contract’s arbitration clause applies to wrongful death claims.” He continues, “Disney’s argument—which is novel and potentially far-reaching—that accepting their terms for one item covers all relations with that company is noteworthy.”

A “poor argument for Disney to depend on” is what Church Court Chambers attorney Jibreel Tramboo calls the terms of the Disney+ trial. However, he notes that “because there is a related arbitration clause,” the provision in the ticket purchase from 2023 might be a stronger case.

“Considering the delicate circumstances in this case, there are many other threads that may prevent them from going to arbitration,” he says, “but that may allow Disney to stay the lawsuit for arbitration.” A Florida judge will hear Disney’s request to have the matter arbitrated rather than tried in court in October.

The passing of Amy Tangsuan has spurred conversations in restaurants about allergy awareness and food safety. Her family feels that increased education and awareness regarding dietary allergies are crucial. 

They hope this situation will result in modifications that shield future tragedies from happening to others. They are still fighting for Disney to take responsibility for their actions. 

Understanding Arbitration Clauses and Their Significance

A lot of consumer contracts contain arbitration clauses. They frequently contain provisions requiring out-of-court resolution of disputes. Here are some important arbitration-related points:

• Compared to court trials, arbitration could be less expensive.
• Consumers could receive lower compensation in arbitration.
• Usually, arbitration rulings are final and difficult to challenge.
• Many customers may need to be made aware of these agreements. 

Final Thoughts

In summary, when disputes arise, individuals involved in a contract in the United States must navigate complex legal frameworks. The Disney wrongful death lawsuit highlights the importance of understanding arbitration clauses as part of an enforceable contract.

The ability to resolve disputes through arbitration rather than traditional court proceedings can have some implications in cases involving consumer agreements, such as Disney+. Arbitrators’ decision rulings are usually final and legally binding, making arbitration a quicker and frequently less expensive alternative.

The key question here is whether Disney can invoke the arbitration clause from a Disney+ subscription agreement in the event of a tragic accident, such as a wrongful death at a theme park.

This calls into question businesses’ legal duty to ensure flexible and moderate contracts. It might be necessary for the court of appeals to decide whether such clauses are upholdable in radically different circumstances.

The courts must consider the fairness and extent of the terms that the parties agree to. Arbitration can be a useful tool for resolving disputes. However, specific performance and legal remedies should still be available in certain situations, such as when a company fails to protect people with compromised immune systems.