In the face of substantial public opposition, entertainment giant Disney reconsidered its position, permitting a lawsuit alleging wrongful death to proceed in court. This comes despite the company’s earlier insistence on arbitration, resting upon the fact that the surviving spouse had consented to Disney+’s terms of service during his subscription to the streaming service.
Litigation has been initiated by the family of a 42-year-old woman from New York, following a tragic incident at one of the company’s famed Florida attractions, Disneyworld. Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan unfortunately lost her life after suffering a severe allergic reaction post-dining at an Irish-themed pub situated within the Disneyworld complex.
Disney received heavy criticism in the public forum when it was learned that they were seeking third-party arbitration. Their argument was steeped in the fact that the surviving husband, identified as Jeffrey Piccolo, agreed to the Disney+ terms of service when he initially subscribed roughly five years back.
Mr. Piccolo is seeking to redress his loss through the legal system and has brought forward a claim in Florida for $50,000. His wife, Ms. Tangsuan, tragically passed away following an allegic reaction at a restaurant within the resort during their stay in October 2023.
Disney issued a statement on Tuesday, indicating they had decided to renounce their previous preference for arbitration and would now allow the case to be heard in court. The official communication emphasized the company’s commitment to placing ‘humanity above all other considerations.’
The company statement further said, ‘In light of the unique circumstances surrounding this case, we maintain that dealing with such a matter requires a sensitive approach to hasten the resolution for a family grieving deep loss.’ Disney appears to have shifted its stance in response to the backlash it has faced.
Interestingly, the company’s legal team insisted earlier that, owing to Piccolo’s agreement to Disney+ terms back in 2019, the case was destined to arbitration rather than court proceedings. This has since been retracted in favor of allowing a court review.
The first line of defense maintained by Disney was that it bore no responsibility for the tragic passing of Ms. Tangsuan, citing that their role had been merely as a tenant to the restaurant in question. This information was shared with the general public via an announcement on Reuters.
In an unexpected twist, counsel for Disney bolstered their defense with arguments favoring arbitration in late May, following their initial claim of non-liability for the tragic incident. This, too, has since been withdrawn in favor of court proceedings.
The motion to dismiss the case posted by the entertainment conglomerate was vehemently rebuked by the legal team representing Mr. Piccolo. His attorney, Brian Denney, went on record to label the motion as ‘absurd’ in the face of the evidence provided.
According to the lawsuit, Mr. Piccolo, alongside his mother and his late wife Dr. Tangsuan, dined at the Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant. The choice primarily steered by claims of the establishment possessing ‘proper safeguards to protect patrons’ with food allergies.
As noted in the court filings, Dr. Tangsuan made it apparent to their server that she suffered from a severe nut and dairy allergy. She was assured that their meal would be free from such allergens, an assurance that appeared to be reinforced by notations on the restaurant’s menu.
Tragically, shortly after their meal, approximately 45 minutes according to witness accounts, Dr. Tangsuan began exhibiting symptoms of severe respiratory distress. In spite of her attempts at self-administering an EpiPen, her condition deteriorated, culminating in her untimely demise at a local hospital.
The cause of death was confirmed by the medical examiner who attributed it to anaphylaxis, triggered by significantly high levels of dairy and nuts in her system. This unfortunate event has ignited a dispute that puts both public safety and corporate responsibility in sharp focus.
The case continues to unfold as more details emerge, highlighting the inadequacies and failures of safeguards that are supposed to protect consumers with food allergies. The outcome of this lawsuit will undeniably shape policies and practices going forward, both for Disney and other companies in the hospitality sector.