Disney has decided to allow a wrongful death lawsuit to proceed to court after facing intense public backlash. The lawsuit was filed by Jeffrey Piccolo following the death of his wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, who suffered a fatal allergic reaction after eating at a restaurant in Disney Springs. Disney had previously sought to have the case resolved through arbitration, arguing that Piccolo had signed up for a free trial of Disney+ in 2019, which included an arbitration clause.
The tragic incident occurred in October 2022 when Dr. Tangsuan, a physician at NYU Langone Hospital, dined at Raglan Road Irish Pub, a restaurant located at Disney Springs in Florida. According to Piccolo’s lawsuit, the restaurant staff “unequivocally assured” Dr. Tangsuan that her meal would be free of dairy and nut allergens, which she was severely allergic to. Despite these assurances, she experienced a fatal allergic reaction shortly after consuming the meal.
Dr. Tangsuan collapsed 45 minutes after eating, and although she administered her EpiPen, a life-saving device for allergic reactions, she was later pronounced dead at the hospital. The lawsuit claims that the cause of death was “anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nut in her system.”
Piccolo filed the wrongful death lawsuit against both Disney and Raglan Road Irish Pub in February 2023, seeking damages exceeding US$50,000 (C$68,600) for suffering, loss of income, and medical costs. Disney initially responded by filing a motion to stay the case, arguing that Piccolo’s prior agreement to the Disney+ terms of use, which included an arbitration clause, should prevent the case from going to court.
The terms of use for Disney+ require users to waive their rights to any class-action lawsuits or jury trials, a clause that also applies when purchasing theme park tickets or creating accounts for other Disney-owned services like ESPN+. Disney’s move to enforce this clause in the wrongful death case sparked outrage, with critics accusing the company of prioritizing legal technicalities over accountability and compassion.
Amid mounting public pressure and widespread criticism, Disney reversed its position. Josh D’Amaro, a Disney representative, stated that while the company maintains its “right to arbitration,” they have decided to waive it in this instance. “We believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss,” D’Amaro said in a statement.
Piccolo’s lawsuit alleges that the staff at Raglan Road Irish Pub were negligent and inadequately trained to handle severe food allergies. The restaurant, which is advertised as being able to accommodate special dietary requests, failed to properly identify allergen-free dishes, according to the lawsuit. Despite repeated assurances from the servers, Dr. Tangsuan’s meal was not safe, leading to her fatal reaction.
Although Raglan Road Irish Pub is located on Disney property, it is operated by an independent company. Disney has argued that it has no control over the pub’s operations or management and should not be held liable. However, the lawsuit includes Disney as a defendant, given its association with the restaurant.
A hearing for the case has been scheduled for October 2023. As the lawsuit proceeds, it raises significant concerns about food safety in restaurants, especially those that claim to cater to individuals with severe food allergies. The case also highlights the complexities of arbitration agreements and their implications for consumer rights in legal disputes.
This case underscores the ongoing issue of food allergies, which affect millions of people worldwide. In Canada alone, more than three million people have self-reported at least one food allergy, with one in two Canadian households being affected. There is currently no cure for food allergies, making proper handling and clear communication in restaurants a matter of life and death.
As the legal proceedings continue, the outcome could have far-reaching implications for how businesses handle food allergies and the enforceability of arbitration clauses in cases involving severe harm or death.
