Disney wrongful-death lawsuit: Difference between revisions
m add categories |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Category:Legal Lockout]] | [[Category:Legal Lockout]] | ||
===The EPCOT death lawsuit and Disney's arbitration clause=== | ===The EPCOT death lawsuit and Disney's arbitration clause=== | ||
In a wrongful-death lawsuit,<ref>[[:File:AUGUST 2ND RESPONSE.pdf]]</ref> Jeffrey Piccolo sued Walt Disney Parks & Resorts (WDPR) and Great Irish Pubs Florida, Inc. after his wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, died from a severe allergic reaction at Raglan Road Irish Pub in Disney Springs on October 5, 2023. The lawsuit accused the restaurant and Disney of negligence in accommodating her food allergy, which contributed to her death.<ref name="nprdwd">https://www.npr.org/2024/08/14/nx-s1-5074830/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-disney</ref> | In a wrongful-death lawsuit,<ref>[[:File:AUGUST 2ND RESPONSE.pdf|"AUGUST 2ND RESPONSE.pdf"]] - wiki.rossmanngroup.com - accessed 2025-01-29 </ref> Jeffrey Piccolo sued Walt Disney Parks & Resorts (WDPR) and Great Irish Pubs Florida, Inc. after his wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, died from a severe allergic reaction at Raglan Road Irish Pub in Disney Springs on October 5, 2023. The lawsuit accused the restaurant and Disney of negligence in accommodating her food allergy, which contributed to her death.<ref name="nprdwd">[https://www.npr.org/2024/08/14/nx-s1-5074830/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-disney "Disney backtracks on request to toss wrongful death suit over Disney+ agreement"] - npr.org - accessed 2025-01-29</ref> | ||
==Background== | ==Background== | ||
Dr. Tangsuan, a family-medicine specialist at NYU Langone Hospital, had severe allergies to dairy and nuts. She and her family chose to dine at Raglan Road, specifically because Disney had advertised that they accommodate guests with food allergies throughout their properties. Despite Dr. Tangsuan repeatedly informing her server about her allergies and receiving multiple assurances that their ordered dishes would be allergen-free, Dr. Tangsuan suffered a severe allergic reaction approximately 45 minutes after eating. Although she self-administered an EpiPen, she later died at the hospital. The medical examiner confirmed her death was due to anaphylaxis from elevated levels of dairy and nuts in her system.<ref name="nytdwd">https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/14/nyregion/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-arbitration.html</ref> | Dr. Tangsuan, a family-medicine specialist at NYU Langone Hospital, had severe allergies to dairy and nuts. She and her family chose to dine at Raglan Road, specifically because Disney had advertised that they accommodate guests with food allergies throughout their properties. Despite Dr. Tangsuan repeatedly informing her server about her allergies and receiving multiple assurances that their ordered dishes would be allergen-free, Dr. Tangsuan suffered a severe allergic reaction approximately 45 minutes after eating. Although she self-administered an EpiPen, she later died at the hospital. The medical examiner confirmed her death was due to anaphylaxis from elevated levels of dairy and nuts in her system.<ref name="nytdwd">[https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/14/nyregion/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-arbitration.html "Can a Disney+ Subscription Keep a Widower From Suing Disney in Court?"] - nytimes.com - accessed 2025-01-29</ref> | ||
==The EULA roofie attempt== | ==The EULA roofie attempt== | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
This represented a classic example of a [[EULA roofie]], where Disney attempted to use terms buried within a streaming-service agreement to deny a consumer's right to sue over an unrelated wrongful-death case at a restaurant. Disney argued that because Piccolo had clicked "Agree & Continue" when signing up for the Disney+ streaming service, he was bound by an arbitration clause for any legal claims against the company or its affiliates. This, they argued, included the food served by a restaurant on their premises that killed his wife, even if the issue was unrelated to the streaming service. | This represented a classic example of a [[EULA roofie]], where Disney attempted to use terms buried within a streaming-service agreement to deny a consumer's right to sue over an unrelated wrongful-death case at a restaurant. Disney argued that because Piccolo had clicked "Agree & Continue" when signing up for the Disney+ streaming service, he was bound by an arbitration clause for any legal claims against the company or its affiliates. This, they argued, included the food served by a restaurant on their premises that killed his wife, even if the issue was unrelated to the streaming service. | ||
Disney said that the reason for trying to send the case to arbitration was because the restaurant "is neither owned nor operated by Disney" and that they were defending themselves against inclusion in the lawsuit.<ref>https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/14/business/disney-plus-wrongful-death-lawsuit/index.html</ref> | Disney said that the reason for trying to send the case to arbitration was because the restaurant "is neither owned nor operated by Disney" and that they were defending themselves against inclusion in the lawsuit.<ref>[https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/14/business/disney-plus-wrongful-death-lawsuit/index.html "Disney wants wrongful death suit thrown out because widower bought an Epcot ticket and had Disney+"] - edition.cnn.com - accessed 2025-01-29</ref> | ||
===Legal arguments=== | ===Legal arguments=== | ||