Man denied ability to sue Disney over his wife's death due to terms he agreed to in free trial of Disney+
A man has been denied the ability to sue Disney over the death of his wife due to terms and conditions that he agreed to in a free trial of Disney+.
Most people don’t read the terms when signing up for something like a streaming service but it seems like this case could be a cautionary tale.
A wrongful death lawsuit was filed against Disney by a widower, Jeffrey J. Piccolo, after his wife suffered an allergic reaction in a Disney Parks and Resorts restaurant.
Advert
However, the corporation is seeking to have the lawsuit dismissed as Piccolo had signed up to its streaming service previously.
Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, 42, was a family medicine specialist and had eaten at the Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant in Disney World Orlando with her husband and mother-in-law on 5 October, 2023.
In their claim, Piccolo's legal team say that the group had explicitly told employees about Tangsuan’s dairy and nut allergies.
They also said that the couple were reassured the food was ‘unequivocally’ safe for her to eat.
However, around 45 minutes after eating the meal, Tangsuan suddenly suffered from an allergic reaction while shopping in Planet Hollywood at the Florida resort and she collapsed.
Her EpiPen was administered and she was rushed to hospital, but she sadly didn’t make it.
Her death was ruled as accidental and the cause was listed to be as a result of a severe allergic reaction (anaphylaxis).
Piccolo filed the lawsuit against both the restaurant and the Walt Disney Company, alleging that his wife's death was ‘totally preventable’ and could have been avoided if ‘proper protocols’ had been followed.
The claim accuses Disney of having ‘failed to educate, train and/or instruct its employees [to] make sure food indicated as allergen free or requested to be made allergen free, was in fact free of allergens’.
Now, the widower was seeking $50,000 in damages but Disney is trying to have the lawsuit dismissed and sent to arbitration instead because of the terms which Piccolo agreed to when he signed up for a Disney+ account in 2019.
The company claims that he also accepted the same terms and conditions when he purchased tickets to the Disney theme park in 2023, the BBC reported.
When signing up for his one-month trial on the streaming service, Disney alleged that Piccolo agreed to the terms of their ‘Subscriber Agreement’ listed in section seven.
It states that users must resolve any disputes through arbitration opposed to litigation, which means it must be handled with a neutral third party opposed to a formal court process where a judge or jury decides the case.
This has been branded ‘preposterous’ by Piccolo's lawyers, who accused the corporation of ‘burying’ the bizarre agreement in the terms and conditions.
In a court filing dated August 2, West Palm Beach attorney Brian Denney said it was ‘outrageously unreasonable and unfair’ to expect consumers to be aware of this stipulation, while asking the court not to enforce the arbitration.
Disney's legal team said that subscribers have to select checkboxes that hyperlink to the terms of use, as well as another that says they agreed to the terms, and they cannot select ‘Agree & Continue’ if this is not complete.
A spokesperson for Disney told LADbible Group: “We are deeply saddened by the family’s loss and understand their grief. Given that this restaurant is neither owned nor operated by Disney, we are merely defending ourselves against the plaintiff’s attorney’s attempt to include us in their lawsuit against the restaurant.”
Disney said its ‘position in no way affects any wrongful death or other claims the plaintiff may have against the restaurant’.