Disney has retracted its stance that a man could not pursue legal action over his wife’s death due to terms he agreed to during a free trial of Disney+.
Jamie Cartwright, a partner at Charles Russell Speechlys, suggested that Disney’s reversal was likely prompted by the negative publicity their initial position had generated.
Jeffrey Piccolo initiated a wrongful death lawsuit against Disney and the owners of a restaurant after his wife tragically passed away in 2023 from a severe allergic reaction after dining at Disney World in Florida.
Mr Piccolo and his wife, Dr Kanokporn Tangsuan, had dined at Raglan Road, an Irish-themed pub at Disney Springs in Orlando, operated by an independent company.
He claims that despite repeatedly informing the restaurant staff about his wife’s serious dairy and nut allergies, the establishment failed to take adequate precautions. She later passed away in the hospital that same day.
The legal filing states that her death was confirmed by a medical examiner as resulting from anaphylaxis due to high levels of dairy and nuts in her system.
Mr Piccolo is seeking over $50,000 from Disney, along with additional damages for emotional distress, loss of income, and medical and legal expenses.
Initially, Disney argued that the case should be resolved through arbitration, citing a clause in the Disney+ streaming service’s terms and conditions, which Mr Piccolo had briefly signed up for in 2019. However, after public backlash, Disney has agreed to allow the case to proceed in court.
Lawyers for Mr Piccolo criticised corporate attempts like Disney’s to circumvent jury trials, stating that Mr Piccolo is determined to seek justice for his wife in court.
They added that he hopes these events have raised awareness about the millions of people suffering from food allergies.
Arbitration, which involves a neutral third party overseeing a dispute, can be beneficial for those looking to avoid lengthy trials, but it also means that the evidence would not be presented to a jury.
Disney has maintained that it had no control over the management and operation of the restaurant. Mr Piccolo’s lawyers had described Disney’s argument for arbitration as “bordering on the surreal.”
It’s unclear if Disney would have succeeded if a judge had ruled on its arbitration request. The company is currently in the process of withdrawing its arbitration claim from the court.
Add Comment