Disney's Latest Attempt to Dismiss Wrongful Death Claim Linked to Disney+ Trial

Disney Attempts to Dismiss Wrongful Death Claim Linked to Disney+ Trial

Disney is currently facing a Wrongful death claim brought by Jeffrey Piccolo on behalf of his late wife , Kanokporn Tangsuan . Tangsuan , a doctor at NYU Langone hospital , tragically passed away due to an allergic reaction while dining at Raglan Road Irish Pub within Disney Springs in Florida . Her family had meticulously communicated her food allergies to the restaurant staff , emphasizing the importance of allergen - free dishes . Despite these efforts , Tangsuan consumed items containing dairy and nuts , leading to a severe reaction that ultimately claimed her life.

Piccolo filed a lawsuit against Raglan Road Irish Pub and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S. Inc. , seeking damages exceeding 0,000 and a trial by jury . However , Disney is now challenging the lawsuit , citing a Disney+ trial agreement Piccolo signed years ago . The terms and conditions of the Disney+ trial included an arbitration clause , which Disney argues requires Piccolo to resolve any disputes through private arbitration rather than in a public court setting.

In response to Disney 's motion to compel arbitration , Piccolo 's lawyers vehemently rejected the company 's claims , labeling them as " outrageously unreasonable . " They argued that the arbitration clause Piccolo agreed to when signing up for Disney+ could not possibly encompass claims related to his wife 's wrongful death at a Disney restaurant . Furthermore , they emphasized that the estate of Tangsuan , for whom the lawsuit is filed , did not consent to such terms as it did not exist at the time of the alleged agreement.

Controversy Surrounding Corporate Arbitration Tactics

Disney 's attempt to invoke the arbitration clause in Piccolo 's Disney+ trial agreement is part of a broader trend among companies to steer legal disputes away from public courts and into arbitration , a private process that can disadvantage consumers . This strategy , employed by companies like Airbnb and Walmart , relies on expansive arbitration clauses embedded in user agreements to shield corporations from lawsuits and limit consumers ' access to jury trials.

Legal experts have raised concerns about the prevalence of " infinite arbitration clauses , " which customers often unknowingly agree to while signing up for various services . These clauses , characterized by sweeping language that covers a wide range of disputes , have sparked debates about consumer rights and the fairness of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism.

While arbitration can offer efficiency and cost - effectiveness in resolving conflicts , critics argue that it favors large corporations and limits access to justice for consumers . The Supreme Court 's past rulings on arbitration have emboldened companies to enforce arbitration clauses aggressively , leading to a complex legal landscape where the scope of such agreements is continually challenged in court.

In the case of Disney , the dispute over the applicability of the arbitration clause highlights the tension between contractual obligations and fundamental rights to legal recourse . As the legal battle unfolds , the outcome will not only impact Piccolo 's quest for justice but also set a precedent for how companies can use arbitration clauses to shield themselves from liability in wrongful death cases and other legal disputes.