Does a subscription to the Disney+ video streaming service prevent survivors from going to court in the event of a death for which Disney is responsible? At least that is the view of the company’s lawyers in connection with a lawsuit filed on February 22 in the District Court of the 9th Judicial District of Orange County, Florida (The case can be viewed here under case number 024-CA-001616-O,
Advertisement
With the said lawsuit, Jeffrey Picolo is trying to hold the Walt Disney Parks and Resorts division and the operating company of the “Raglan Road” restaurant liable for the death of his wife Konokporn Tangsuan. According to the plaintiff, he was at the “Raglan Road” restaurant on October 5 last year, despite several deaths, according to specific instructions. Tangsuan had a severe allergy to foods that contained nuts and milk. Shortly after eating dinner, she suffered a severe allergic reaction, which led to her death. The coroner’s investigation confirmed the cause of death was anaphylaxis caused by increased levels of dairy products and nuts in her body.
According to the plaintiff, Piccolo and his wife had visited “Raglan Road” because both Walt Disney Parks and Resorts and the restaurant operator had advertised to the public that people with food allergies were given top priority at the restaurant and that trained restaurant staff could be consulted before ordering food for special diets.
No lawsuit possible due to membership?
As it has now become known, lawyers for the Disney group filed a lawsuit filed a motion to dismiss in the district court – with the whole root cause: the plaintiff took a trial subscription to Disney’s video streaming service “Disney+” on November 29, 2019 and agreed to the general terms of use of the service. And these same terms of use contained a link to a document that would prevent Picolo from taking legal action in this case. He would rather have to present his case before an arbitration tribunal. Critics see this as an attempt by Disney to bring the case before an institution that is more favorable to the company than a court.
Disney’s lawyers argued that the agreement, as it was stated at the time, applies to “any dispute, action or other controversy between you and us relating to the Disney+ Service, the ESPN+ Service or this Agreement, whether past, present or future events, whether based on contract, tort, warranty, statute, regulation or any other legal or equitable basis”.
Corporate lawyers may want to draw a similar conclusion from the fact that the plaintiff previously purchased tickets to Disney’s Epcot amusement park in 2023 through the Disney website “My Disney.” Here, too, the website’s terms of use will contain similar terms.
Piccolo’s lawyers said in their response that the notion that their client, when he set up his Disney+ account on behalf of his wife or her estate, agreed to settle injuries his wife suffered at a restaurant on the company’s property boundaries is absurd. The district court has now scheduled a hearing for Oct. 2.
(Private)
