Culture Disney wants NYU doctor allergy death suit tossed because of widower’s Disney+ subscription - Disney argued that the Disney+ subscriber agreement Piccolo signed years earlier on his PlayStation called for any dispute to be “resolved by individual binding arbitration.”

1723580333447.png

Disney is trying to get a wrongful death lawsuit filed by a New York University doctor’s grieving husband tossed — because he signed up for the Disney+ streaming service years earlier, court papers said.

Kanokporn Tangsuan’s bereaved husband Jeffrey Piccolo is currently suing the theme park juggernaut claiming that she suffered a fatal allergic reaction shortly after eating at a Disney Springs restaurant in Florida last October.

But Disney is now claiming the $50,000 suit should be moved out of the courts because Piccolo agreed to arbitrate all disputes with the company when he first signed up for a one-month trial of the Disney+ streaming service back in 2019, court documents charge.

Piccolo’s attorneys, on their part, have slammed Disney’s latest motion as “preposterous” and “outrageously unreasonable.”

In the May 31 motion filed in Orange County, Fla. circuit court, Disney argued that the Disney+ subscriber agreement Piccolo signed years earlier on his PlayStation called for any dispute — with the exception of small claims — to be “resolved by individual binding arbitration.”

The company added that Piccolo agreed to similar language when he then used the “My Disney Experience” app to buy tickets to visit the Epcot theme park in September last year — a month before the ill-fated trip.

Disney has argued that both agreements required Piccolo to consent to the arbitration language before purchasing, the court filings claim.

Piccolo’s lawyers have since fired back, insisting in an Aug. 2 motion that Disney’s argument is “fatally flawed.”

“The notion that terms agreed to by a consumer when creating a Disney+ free trial account would forever bar that consumer’s right to a jury trial in any dispute with any Disney affiliate or subsidiary, is so outrageously unreasonable and unfair as to shock the judicial conscience, and this court should not enforce such an agreement,” the lawyers wrote.

They also argue that Piccolo filed the wrongful death suit as the “personal representative of the estate of Kanokporn Tangsuan” and not on behalf of himself.

Tangsuan, 42, died of a severe allergic reaction known as anaphylaxis just hours after dining at the Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant with her husband back on Oct. 5, the original complaint said.

The physician, who had worked Manhattan’s NYU Langone hospital, had repeatedly stressed to wait staff that she had nut and dairy allergies when she ordered scallops, onion rings, broccoli and corn fritters, according to the filing.

Soon after leaving the restaurant, Tangsuan started experiencing difficulty breathing and collapsed, court papers charge.

Even though an epi-pen was immediately administered to her, she died at a local hospital, the lawsuit said.

Piccolo is seeking more than $50,000 in damages under Florida’s wrongful death act, in addition to mental pain and suffering, loss of income and funeral expenses.

The Post reached out to both Disney and Piccolo’s attorneys for comment.

https://nypost.com/2024/08/13/us-ne...h-suit-tossed-because-of-disney-subscription/ (Archive)
 
It's FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS that's not even a full Quasi! I'm surprised disney wanted to buy the bad press around this instead of just, you know, letting their insurance eat the $50k.
Never underestimate the desire of greedy psychopaths to count every cent as sacred and refuse to part with it for even the most noble of causes. There is a reason the Bible says its easier for a poor man to get into heaven than a rich man.
 
Oh well, I guess it's okay since the widower can still jack off to Kanokporn...

This challenge to the suit is absurd though. Signing a contract for fucking Disney+ makes them exempt when they give you food that leads to your death? I don't understand how anyone might consider this a sensible defence.
 
Oh well, I guess it's okay since the widower can still jack off to Kanokporn...

This challenge to the suit is absurd though. Signing a contract for fucking Disney+ makes them exempt when they give you food that leads to your death? I don't understand how anyone might consider this a sensible defence.
the reasonable defense is "we're a normal food joint, not Jimmy Allergen's Clean Room, what the fuck do you expect"
I did WDW with a person who had a mild allergy back fifteen years ago or so, and each time no matter where they did everything in their power to explain "we'll try, it _should_ be okay, but for legal reasons we technically can't promise shit"
 
Not that there is any validity to the argument, but it says they signed up for a trial. Didn’t even sign up to pay. And fucking Disney is really letting their lawyers throw this argument out there over a 50k suit? Also, that number seems low considering this was a doctor at NYU. Typically you could argue for lifetime loss of income, and 50k wouldn’t even cover 6 months.
 
Every time you think Disney can't get any more jewish, they push even harder.

And the irony is not lost on me that a company founded by a man who hated jews, is now completely taken over by jews, and used to push jewish degeneracy. You'll never convince me that it's not an intentional act of revenge by a bunch of desert rats who hold grudges for millenia.
 
In the May 31 motion filed in Orange County, Fla. circuit court, Disney argued that the Disney+ subscriber agreement Piccolo signed years earlier on his PlayStation called for any dispute — with the exception of small claims — to be “resolved by individual binding arbitration.”

The company added that Piccolo agreed to similar language when he then used the “My Disney Experience” app to buy tickets to visit the Epcot theme park in September last year — a month before the ill-fated trip.
Okay, I'm ready to lose a few more motes of faith in humanity and the legal profession.

What does the Disney+ subscription agreement or the Park app have to do with the decision to eat at a Disney restaurant?

Because these all appear to be distinct and separate transactions.
 
Okay, I'm ready to lose a few more motes of faith in humanity and the legal profession.

What does the Disney+ subscription agreement or the Park app have to do with the decision to eat at a Disney restaurant?

Because these all appear to be distinct and separate transactions.
I'm thinking that this is a way to leverage a company's vast assets to basically granted immunity to a company's wrongdoing. This is extremely dangerous because it leads to all sorts of issues. Imagine, if you will, a number of potential scenarios.

- An Amazon worker sucker-punches you and breaks your jaw. You don't have Amazon streaming services but Amazon's attorneys point to a movie ticket from Levon's Trade, from Amazon-owned MGM.
- A factory accident caused pallets of Kibbles 'n Bits to be contaminated with cadmium. Unfortunately your dog wolfed down the bag before news of the recall came out. Despite it being the fault of Big Heart Pet Brands, you have a box of Twinkies in your pantry. Both Hostess Brands and Big Heart Pet Brands are owned by J.M. Smucker; they cite your Twinkies weakness as to why they can't be sued about their heavy metal screw-up.
- Your town is now a toxic waste dump after BNSF's incompetence that led to a variety of nasty chemicals being spilled. (Think East Palestine). BNSF's parent company, Berkshire Hathaway, cuts any compensation for you because you frequented the town's Dairy Queen on a semi-regular basis. International Dairy Queen has been owned by Berkshire Hathaway since 1998.
 
- Your town is now a toxic waste dump after BNSF's incompetence that led to a variety of nasty chemicals being spilled. (Think East Palestine). BNSF's parent company, Berkshire Hathaway, cuts any compensation for you because you frequented the town's Dairy Queen on a semi-regular basis. International Dairy Queen has been owned by Berkshire Hathaway since 1998.
CURSE YOUR DELICIOUS BLIZZARDS!
 
I support Disney in this case. Anyone that signed up to Disney+ deserves their fate.
 
Back