Disney has withdrawn its attempt to dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit because it should be resolved through arbitration as specified. When one signed up for a Disney+ free trial. The case was filed by Jeffrey Piccolo. Whose wife died in 2023 from an extreme allergic reaction after eating at Disney World in Florida.
Background of the Lawsuit Disney
The wife of Jeffrey Piccolo, Dr Kanokporn Tangsuan, died because she had a severe allergic response to milk. And nuts after having dinner at Raglan Road, which is an Irish-themed pub located in Disney Springs adjacent to Orlando. The pub, while situated within a Disney premises, is operated not by the company but by another entity. Piccolo accuses this restaurant of being unresponsive about his spouse’s terrible alspouse’sdespite repeated warnings.
Disney’s ArbitrationDisney’s
Initially, Disney claimed that the dispute should instead be settled through arbitration, referring to terms and conditions accepted by Piccolo during a short-term subscription to the Disney+ streaming service in 2019. Arbitration is an alternative method of dispute resolution away from court jurisdiction, where neutral third parties resolve disputes, enabling parties to avoid public trials and juries.
Public Outrage and Reversal By Disney
Following massive protests from stakeholders including human rights organizations, Disney decided not to go ahead with its arbitration process allowing the suit to proceed before the courts. According to D’A tomato (a representative of Disneyland), “We think this desert “desires a dispassionate approach that gets us there more quickly than it would otherwise take in such a painful experience for the family.” Consequently, it has to litigate rather than use arbitration as a forum for resolving all these issues.
Legal Response and Criticism
Piccolo’s legal teamPiccolo’sed Disney’s initial plaDisney’seping away from jury trials, insisting that they are looking forward to getting justice through the judicial system. They also expect their suit will help educate people on food allergies and possibly prevent similar incidents from happening in the future. According to Piccolo’s attorneys, Piccolo’ss by corpora”ions like Disney to avoid jury trials should be looked at with scepticism.”
Publicity and Commentary
Legal advisers suggest that Disney’s move to see Disney’s situation on a tenuous basis has led to negative media coverage, which it has seemingly sought to avoid. Drawing from his experience in numerous high-profile cases of commercial litigation, Jamie Cartwright of Charles Russell Speechlys said the strategy backfired for Disney as it only attracted the attention they did not want.“This succeeded “nly in creating the very publicity and attention it likely wanted to avoid,” Cartwright tol” BBC.
Controversy over Terms and Conditions
Disney’s argumenDisney’s product’s terms product’s universally for all dealings with the company was the novel. And potentially expansive application of contract law. For instance. Ernest Aduwa, a lawyer at Stokoe Partnership Solicitors. Said this is a clear example of “pushing the env”lope of contract law” by Disney. On “ts part, Jibreel Tramboo. Who practices from Church Court Chambers, also thought that such terms accepted. When trying out Disney+ were really “a weak argument” for Disney.
D”sney is now formally planning to withdraw its arbitration request so that the lawsuit can proceed.
