A woman died from food allergies at a Disney Park, her husband sued the company but due to terms and conditions in the Disney+ app, his lawsuit was thrown out.
If you are considering booking travel or signing up for a new credit card please click here. Both support LiveAndLetsFly.com.
If you haven’t followed us on Facebook or Instagram, add us today.
Tragedy At A Disney Springs Restaurant
A couple’s trip to Walt Disney World ended in tragedy. An NYU Langone doctor, Amy Tangsuan began having severe difficulty breathing, collapsed to the floor with anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nuts in her system. She and her husband, Jeffrey Piccolo, had informed staff of her allergy before ordering their meal from Raglan Road Irish Pub.
The restaurant is not owned by Walt Disney Parks and Resorts but is located at the Disney World entertainment venue, Disney Springs, not far from the parks in Orlando.
The medical examiner cited the allergic reaction as the cause of death. Raglan uses allergen free flags on its menu but cross contamination in any kitchen can be hard to avoid despite greatest efforts and best intentions.
Lawsuit Thrown Out Over Disney+ Terms And Conditions
Surviving widower Jeffrey Piccolo brought a wrongful death lawsuit against the restaurant and the Walt Disney Company requesting a jury trial. But in a most unusual turn, Disney fought the case based on a streaming subscription he had ordered years prior.
“Her cousin, attorney Peter Giattino, calls Disney’s response shocking and absurd. Because Tangsuan’s husband, Jeffrey Piccolo, signed up for Disney+ years earlier, he signed away his rights to sue. Disney cites fine print in the agreement, which requires users to arbitrate all disputes with the company.
“She was stolen from him, and now, in effect, what Disney is doing is trying to steal his day in court and it’s a fundamental right we all have,” Giattino said.” – CBS
When Piccolo signed up for Disney+ years ago, he agreed to arbitration and as he has filed suit, the company has grounds to request dismissal. According to CBS, Disney said Piccolo also signed away his rights to sue by purchasing Epcot tickets online.
View this post on Instagram
What Does This Mean For The Future?
Legal experts suggested that the terms and conditions are enforceable. What the courts will have to decide, likely on appeal, is if a purchase of an unrelated product can apply terms as broadly as Disney aims to do. With the online purchase of Epcot tickets, that seems more of a direct line in which the purchaser intended to physically interact with the brand and its partners. There are many third-party food and beverage outlets throughout the Disney facilities.
But what I think the courts will have to decide is whether a peacock subscription could bar a user from ever suing Comcast, for example, or if negligence was the cause for a death at a Universal park. If an Apple customer is trying out a new iPhone and it blows up in their hands in an Apple store, can the purchaser no longer sue Apple because they bought a song on iTunes a decade ago?
If upheld, any company can be absolved of any future action simply by inserting terms into unrelated products and that is a dangerous precedent to set.
Conclusion
In fairness to Disney, I believe they were targeted because the proprietors of Raglan had a smaller purse to collect than the entertainment conglomerate. And while I empathize with a husband who lost his wife to something altogether preventable and specifically addressed, I don’t think Disney is at fault. However, the broad use of terms and conditions for something a subscriber is unlikely to connect with another purchase also feels like a stretch and should terrify anyone who blindly accepts the terms without reading them (everyone.) I can’t imagine the courts will allow this provision to stand, but the Epcot one would seem to apply more directly and would be grounds enough to dismiss. Still, my thoughts remain with Piccolo and Dr. Tangsuan’s family.
What do you think?
Troubling story all around. My sympathies for Amy’s family. With allergies it’s difficult to put faith in restaurant staff and understanding the serious consequences of cross contamination. Anyone can make a mistake. Usually the epi-pen can buy some time for help.
This wasn’t a Disney restaurant and going after them is unlikely to produce a settlement. However revealing the terms and conditions is a shocker and I must wonder what I’ve signed off on in the past.
I put NO trust in any restaurant or catered food , because I suspect the cooks do not wash their hands with hot water. I suspect they do not know the meaning of the word “sanitation” . And guess what : even more cooking staff are coming across the border daily . Whenever I have asked a restaurant owner if his cooks wash their hands with hot water , they have NEVER answered in the affirmative . Instead , they ignored the question . I probably trust the dishwasher more than the cook .
Another problem is the placing of cut citrus fruit ( lemon , lime , orange ) in one’s drink , or on the rim . They are cut into pieces , but I have ever seen them washed and scrubbed . Moreover , bartenders handle rather filthy money .
With the promised crackdown on password sharing for Disney+, I wonder if this legal defense will come back to bite them with reduced sign ups for their streaming platform. I know I would be hesitant to sign up for the service—and in fact will not sign up—if it can have legal repercussions on something completely unrelated.
Yes, the family appears to be suing the wrong entity, but Disney’s response seems a bit short-sighted.
Contract law in America needs a major overhaul. The way terms and conditions are treated now tilts the playing field so heavily in the favor of big corporations it’s crazy.
I don’t doubt the need for overhaul, but in this case, no way the big corporation is at fault.
Besides if you’re deathly allergic, why are you eating out at a place that serves things you are deathly allergic to?
Not sure why he is afraid of arbitration. He has an easy win there, at least against the Restaurant
And people often collect far quicker via arbitration vs a lawsuit
Greed
It seems that Disney has now reversed course. Perhaps they saw this might turn into a PR nightmare and figured that costs of that were far greater than any chance they would lose given that they don’t operate the establishment in question.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/19/business/disney-arbitration-wrongful-death-lawsuit-intl-hnk/index.html