In an intriguing legal battle, Disney is arguing that a wrongful death lawsuit should be dismissed because the plaintiff had subscribed to Disney+. The case revolves around the tragic death of Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, a 42-year-old New York doctor who had a fatal allergic reaction after dining at Raglan Road in Disney Springs last October. Her husband, Jeffrey Piccolo, is seeking justice, but Disney’s legal team points to the terms agreed upon when Piccolo signed up for a Disney+ trial in 2019.
Disney’s motion contends that the subscription agreement included a binding arbitration clause. This clause, they argue, necessitates that all disputes with the company be resolved through arbitration rather than in court. “The Terms of Use were clear,” Disney’s attorneys stated. “Any dispute must be resolved by individual binding arbitration.” They added that the clause applies to all Disney affiliates.
On the other side, Piccolo’s lawyer calls the argument “absurd.” Brian Denney, Piccolo’s attorney, passionately argued that it’s unreasonable to believe that subscribing to a streaming service waives all rights to a jury trial against any Disney entity. He urged the court to reject what he called an unfair legal interpretation that “shocks the judicial conscience.”
This tragic incident began when Tangsuan and her family specifically requested allergen-free meals due to her severe nut and dairy allergies. Despite reassurances from their server, Tangsuan experienced a fatal allergic reaction. A medical examiner later confirmed she died from anaphylaxis due to the presence of dairy and nuts in her system.
As this case unfolds, it raises questions about the extent of arbitration clauses and consumer rights. A hearing is scheduled for October 2nd in Orlando, and Piccolo seeks over $50,000 in damages. Do you think terms agreed upon during an online subscription should affect rights in such serious scenarios? Share your thoughts in the comments and get involved in the discussion.
Source: The Detroit News
