Update: Disney has issued a formal statement regarding the Piccolo lawsuit, further claiming it has no responsibility and attempting to shift the blame. It reads, “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.”
UPDATE: Mr. Piccolo’s attorneys have filed a response to Disney World, which can be found here.
Disney World is demanding that a tragic wrongful death lawsuit over a woman’s fatal allergic reaction at a Disney Springs restaurant be tossed out of court. Grotesquely, it is claiming that signing up for the Disney+ streaming service means you waive all future ability to sue the entire company in court, even in matters of life and death.
Last year, Dr. Kanokporn “Amy” Tangsuan and her husband, Jeffrey Piccolo, were taking a typical vacation at the Walt Disney World Resort in Orlando. Tragically, Tangsuan died shortly after a dinner at the Raglan Road Irish Pub, part of Disney Springs in Lake Buena Vista; she had a severe allergic reaction to her meal and was brought to a hospital. Per the New York Times:
“An autopsy by the District 9 medical examiner’s office in Orlando, Fla., determined that the cause of death was anaphylaxis, or a severe allergic reaction. The autopsy report notes Dr. Tangsuan’s reported history of allergies to dairy products and peanuts and said that she had used an EpiPen before becoming unresponsive. The manner of death was accidental, the report says.”
Related: Guest Narrowly Avoids Death at Disney; Family Accuses Cast Member of Negligence
Jeffrey Piccolo filed a lawsuit against Raglan Road, an independent restaurant partnered with the Walt Disney Parks and Resorts (WDPRD) via the Disney Springs complex, and Disney World itself, claiming negligence in a wrongful death. The Seattle Times describes the sequence of events:
“Around 8 p.m., after finishing dinner, the doctor and her mother-in-law went shopping separately at Disney Springs, while Piccolo returned to their room with the leftover food, the lawsuit said.About 45 minutes later, Tangsuan was having difficulty breathing when she entered Planet Hollywood and collapsed to the floor. The lawsuit said she had self-administered an epi-pen while suffering from the allergic reaction.Her mother-in-law began calling to meet back up with her, but the calls went unanswered, according to the lawsuit.The mother-in-law returned to the hotel, and she called Tangsuan’s phone again. This time someone answered and said Tangsuan had been taken to a hospital.The doctor died at the hospital, the lawsuit said.”
The lawsuit asserts Disney had “control and/or right of control” over Raglan Road and its training and food allergy/safety practices. Piccolo’s lawsuit is asking for damages in excess of $50,000, and his attorney, Brian Denney, says that the widower hopes the case will “raise awareness in the hopes that other establishments will take customer allergies seriously.”
Piccolo is demanding a trial by jury and claims in the lawsuit that he and Tangsuan researched Raglan Road’s menu before dining to ascertain allergy risks and were “guaranteed” by staff that their meals were allergen-free. The suit continues, “Disney advertises and represents to the public that food allergies and/or the accommodation of persons with food allergies is a top priority at its parks and resorts.”
Now, The Walt Disney Company is trying to get the case removed from trial and brought to arbitration, which is a much quicker and (crucially) typically confidential matter. Given that the death of Dr. Tangsuan at a Disney Resort became national news and made thousands of Guests fearful for their safety, it makes sense that the company might want to avoid going to a public trial.
However, Disney has chosen a truly bizarre way to try to move the case to arbitration rather than trial by jury. In a new filing in Orange County, Disney asserts that because Piccolo had signed up for a “Disney account,” he has waived his rights to a trial, and the case must be moved to arbitration.
The motion reads, in part:
“This lawsuit is destined for arbitration. As explained in WDPR’s Motion, this case involves an allergic reaction allegedly experienced by the decedent after dining at Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant—an independently owned restaurant located in Disney Springs… But before that Piccolo created a Disney account.
And in doing so he agreed to the Disney Terms, which require him to arbitrate “all disputes” against “The Walt Disney Company or its affiliates” arising “in contract, tort, warranty, statute, regulation, or other legal or equitable basis.”
Because Piccolo agreed to arbitrate “all disputes” against WDPR, a stay is warranted. Indeed, further litigation would only generate needless expenses and waste judicial resources. And WDPR would likely be harmed in the process, since its participation might be deemed as a waiver of its right to arbitrate. As we explain below, the Court should enter a stay while the Motion still remains pending.”
Attorney Brian Denney has released a statement alleging that the company is claiming that a trial membership of the Disney+ streaming service is enough to bar you from bringing any legal action against it.
Denney says (via Florida Politics), “Disney is attempting to rob my client of his right to a jury trial, in part, because he signed up for a trial period on the Disney+ app several years ago, which expired. We are in the process of preparing a legal and factual response to this novel motion and will fight it vigorously.”
Notably, the actual Disney World motion (which can be read below) does not specify what the “account” in question was. Denney asserts that it is the streaming service; Disney’s general terms of use for all of the company and its subsidiary products do include an arbitration clause, which can be read here.
It is unclear whether this novel gambit will pass legal muster with a judge. It is entirely possible that the purchase of any Disney product does guarantee the Mouse a certain degree of legal protection; arbitration is heavily favored by corporations for legal settlements as it does not require documentary filings and proceedings as an actual court trial.
In this case, it means essentially that Disney is insisting that someone who has signed up for a “Disney account” has given up their legal rights to sue as a tort case (i.e., one regarding harm through lack of care, such as allergens in food) in publicly documented court and must instead must do it behind closed doors.
Related: Disney World Allegedly Ignored Child’s Deadly Allergic Reaction, Mother Speaks Out
However, it would likely shock many Disney Guests that signing up to watch The Mandalorian or Percy Jackson means that your spouse can die at Disney World and the company can claim that it is the actual victim, as not going to arbitration would mean the massive multinational media conglomerate would “likely be harmed in the process.”
In many ways, this motion by Disney World is a textbook example of the “Streisand Effect.” Per Britannica, the Streisand Effect is the:
“[P]henomenon in which an attempt to censor, hide, or otherwise draw attention away from something only serves to attract more attention to it. The name derives from American singer and actress Barbra Streisand’s lawsuit against a photographer in 2003, which drew attention to the photo she was suing to have taken off the Internet.”
Legendary performer Barbra Streisand made what should have been a relatively minor legal dispute regarding the above photograph into a huge, very public, and very embarrassing case when she attempted to force it out of the limelight.
By trying to claim that it actually has the right to victimhood in an actual case of wrongful death, Disney is also making itself look pretty heavy-handed and callous. Although the lawsuit may indeed go to arbitration, Disney has made a potentially terrible move for its public image. It may succeed in having the case pushed into arbitration, but going viral is far worse for a corporation founded on a “family-friendly image.”
Disney’s motion to stay can be read here:
What do you think of Disney’s claims here? Give us an opinion below!