LEGAL / ENTERTAINMENT

Update on the Disney Wrongful Death Case (08/20/2024)

In a significant development, Disney has decided to waive its right to arbitration in the wrongful death lawsuit brought by Jeffrey Piccolo, whose wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, tragically passed away after suffering an allergic reaction at the Raglan Road Irish Pub in Disney Springs. This decision comes after intense public scrutiny and criticism from Piccolo’s legal team, who argued that Disney’s initial move to invoke arbitration based on streaming service terms was “preposterous” and “outrageously unreasonable.”

Josh D’Amaro, the chairman of Disney Experiences, issued a statement to CNN on Monday, emphasizing the company’s commitment to handling the matter with sensitivity. “At Disney, we strive to put humanity above all other considerations. With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss,” D’Amaro stated. He further confirmed that Disney has decided to allow the case to proceed in court rather than through arbitration, signaling a shift in the company’s approach to resolving the matter.

This decision follows public backlash and legal arguments highlighting the fairness of applying arbitration clauses from a streaming service to a wrongful death case. Piccolo’s legal team had pointed out that Piccolo believed he had only signed up for a month-long free streaming trial, which he canceled before being charged, raising further questions about the applicability of the arbitration clause.

Original Article:
Disney has recently filed a request to dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit brought against them by Jeffrey Piccolo, the widower of Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan. Dr. Tangsuan tragically died after suffering an allergic reaction while dining at the Raglan Road Irish Pub, located in Disney Springs at Walt Disney World Resort in Florida, in October 2023. The lawsuit, seeking $50,000 in damages, claims that negligence on the part of the resort led to her untimely death. However, Disney is seeking to move the case to arbitration, citing the terms of service associated with its streaming platforms as grounds for this request.

The Case Background

The case revolves around the sudden death of Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, who reportedly died from an allergic reaction after consuming food at Raglan Road Irish Pub. According to the lawsuit, the restaurant failed to adequately warn Dr. Tangsuan of the potential allergens in the food, leading to her fatal reaction. Jeffrey Piccolo, her husband, is seeking damages for the alleged negligence that led to her death.

Disney, however, has responded by invoking an arbitration clause contained in the terms of service for its streaming platforms, such as Disney+. The company argues that by agreeing to these terms, Piccolo consented to settle any disputes, including those unrelated to streaming services, through arbitration rather than litigation.

Disney's Request for Arbitration

In their recent court filing, Disney’s attorneys requested that the wrongful death lawsuit be dismissed and moved to arbitration, as outlined in the terms of service. The move has sparked significant debate, particularly about the fairness of using a consumer contract related to streaming services to defend against a wrongful death claim.

However, it’s important to note that requesting arbitration in this case does not necessarily mean Disney does not intend to pay or is trying to avoid liability; arbitration could have benefits for both parties involved. Arbitration often leads to a quicker resolution and can be less costly than traditional litigation, potentially allowing the Piccolo family to receive compensation more swiftly.

Potential Benefits of Arbitration

For the plaintiff, Jeffrey Piccolo, arbitration could offer several advantages:

Speed and Efficiency: Arbitration can often resolve disputes faster than court trials, which can be drawn out over years. This could help the Piccolo family achieve closure and receive any awarded compensation sooner rather than later.
Cost-Effective: Legal battles in court can be expensive. Arbitration generally incurs lower legal fees, which might be beneficial for Piccolo, especially if he is dealing with financial strain after the loss of his wife.
Privacy: Arbitration is a private process, unlike public court trials. This could help protect the Piccolo family's privacy during a difficult time and prevent the details of their case from becoming public.

For Disney, the benefits of arbitration might include:

Cost Management: Arbitration is generally less costly than litigation, which is advantageous for Disney in managing the potential financial impact of the case.
Controlled Environment: In arbitration, both parties typically have more control over the process, including selecting an arbitrator with relevant expertise. This could lead to a more informed and balanced resolution.
Confidentiality: Arbitration proceedings are private, which could help Disney manage its public relations and prevent potentially damaging details from becoming public.

Why Disney Might Be Seeking Arbitration

Disney’s motivation for seeking arbitration likely includes both financial and reputational considerations. By moving the case out of the public court system and into private arbitration, Disney can better control the narrative and potentially limit negative publicity surrounding the case. Additionally, arbitration might offer a quicker and less expensive resolution, which could be seen as advantageous for a corporation managing multiple legal challenges.

However, the use of a streaming service’s terms of service to argue for arbitration in a wrongful death case is unprecedented and raises questions about the fairness and scope of arbitration clauses in consumer agreements. If the court upholds Disney’s request, it could set a concerning precedent for how arbitration clauses are used in future cases.

Legal Implications and Public Reaction

The outcome of this case could have significant legal implications, particularly regarding the enforceability of arbitration clauses in unexpected contexts, such as wrongful death cases. It may also prompt further scrutiny of how large corporations utilize arbitration agreements to protect their interests.

For more details on the case and its broader implications, you can refer to the full article on Deadline. 👓

For more updates on legal cases and entertainment news, follow Blerdz.net on our social media channels:

Twitter: @Blerdz_Net
YouTube: Blerdz
Instagram: @blerdzdotnet
Facebook: Blerdz.net

Stay tuned for more exclusive content and insights!

Disney Seeks Arbitration in Wrongful Death Case Citing Streaming Terms