Disney has reversed its decision to prevent a man from suing the company over the tragic death of his wife, following a severe allergic reaction at Disney World in Florida. Jeffrey Piccolo filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Disney and a restaurant after his wife passed away in 2023.
Initially, Disney argued that the case should be settled through arbitration due to a clause in the terms and conditions of its Disney+ streaming service, which Piccolo had briefly signed up for in 2019. However, after facing backlash, Disney has now agreed to allow the matter to proceed in court.
“We believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss,” said Disney’s Josh D’Amaro in a statement to the BBC.
Piccolo’s lawyers criticized Disney’s attempt to avoid a jury trial, emphasizing the importance of seeking justice for his late wife. They also highlighted the need for increased awareness of food allergies affecting millions of people.
The incident occurred at Raglan Road, an Ireland-themed pub at Disney Springs, where Piccolo’s wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, suffered a fatal allergic reaction to dairy and nuts. Despite informing the restaurant about her severe allergies, she tragically passed away later that day.
Piccolo is seeking damages from Disney in excess of $50,000, along with other costs related to the incident. Disney has maintained that it had no control over the restaurant’s operations.
Legal experts have criticized Disney’s initial arbitration claim, calling it a stretch of contract law. They believe Disney’s argument that accepting terms and conditions for one product covers all interactions with the company is unprecedented and potentially far-reaching.
Disney is now in the process of withdrawing its call for arbitration and preparing to address the lawsuit in court. The case has sparked discussions about corporate responsibility and the rights of consumers in similar situations.
The decision to allow the lawsuit to proceed in court marks a significant development in the ongoing legal battle between Piccolo and Disney, shedding light on the complexities of liability in cases involving severe allergies and corporate entities.
