Disney fights Thai doctor’s death lawsuit, citing husband’s agreement

[snoop1130]

 

Multinational conglomerate Walt Disney dismissed a lawsuit filed by the husband of a Thai doctor who died after dining at a Disney restaurant in Florida, claiming that her husband agreed to settle any disputes with Disney outside of court when he signed up for the Disney+ streaming service.

 

The Thai doctor, 42 year old Kanokporn Tangsuan, died following a severe allergic reaction after eating at the Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant at Disney World in Florida with her husband, Jeffrey Piccolo, on October 5, 2023.

 

On the day of the incident, Kanokporn and her husband ordered fried vegetarian dishes and emphasised to the staff that she could only consume allergen-free food, as she was allergic to dairy products and nuts.

 

When each dish was served, the couple noticed that one of them did not include the allergen-free label like the others. They decided to ask the staff about the dish but the staff confirmed that it was safe for Kanokporn to eat.

 

Immediately after consuming the dish, Kanokporn began to choke and collapsed to the ground. She used an epinephrine autoinjector but her condition did not improve.

 

Her husband called 911 for emergency assistance. Unfortunately, Kanokporn died that night. The doctor later revealed that a large amount of dairy and nuts was found in her system.

 

Disney slammed

 

Kanokporn’s husband, Piccolo, decided to take legal action against Disney, accusing the company’s staff of recklessness and demanding US$50,000 in compensation.

 

According to an update on the case reported by the New York Post, Disney is trying to have the lawsuit dismissed, citing an agreement on the Disney+ streaming platform that Piccolo had accepted during a one-month trial in 2019.

 

Disney stated that Piccolo signed up for the streaming service in 2019 and agreed to the subscriber agreement, which stipulated that any dispute, except small claims, he had with the company would be resolved through individual binding arbitration.

 

The company added that Piccolo had also agreed to a similar agreement when he purchased tickets to the Epcot theme park in September last year.

 

Piccolo’s lawyers criticised Disney’s argument as fundamentally flawed and urged the court not to enforce the unfair agreement.

 

“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 case continues, and the death of Kanokporn has drawn the attention of many who believe that restaurant staff should have proper knowledge of food allergies to ensure customer safety.

 

By Petch Petpailin

Photo via Facebook/ Jeffrey Piccolo

 

Source: The Thaiger 2024-08-14

 

-  Cigna offers a variety of health insurance plans designed to meet the minimum requirement for medical treatment coverage, with benefits reaching up to THB 3 million. These plans are tailored to provide comprehensive healthcare solutions for expatriates, ensuring peace of mind and access to quality medical services. To explore the full range of Cigna's expat health insurance options and find a plan that suits your needs, click here for more information.

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

[freeworld]

A large company like Disney and they are fighting to not pay out or trying to reduce settlement of US50k. Lets hope the legal system works the right way for this one.

 

Disney Net income US$2.354 billion (FY23)

 

CEO Bob Chapek's compensation package for the company’s fiscal 2021 hit about $32.5 million. That's more than double the $14.2 million he took home a year ago, according to Variety.

[ukrules]

People have been saying that Disney is evil for many years and it always confused me.

 

This provides some clarity.

[spidermike007]

Rather callous of Disney to dismiss such a relatively low demand of compensation. 

 

I always say it is best to avoid their amusement parks. I was in Florida with my woman several years ago and she really wanted to go to Disney, and we were hanging out with my niece who lives in the Orlando area, and I was able to get my niece and her husband to agree to spend the day with her at Disney. I feel like I escaped by the skin of my teeth! 

 

I would have gone if somebody could have found me a sponsor that would have paid me $40,000 for the day, flown us in and out of the parking lot by helicopter, and had an usher bring us on to each ride, avoiding each line. Otherwise, life is far too short. 

[hotchilli]

13 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

According to an update on the case reported by the New York Post, Disney is trying to have the lawsuit dismissed, citing an agreement on the Disney+ streaming platform that Piccolo had accepted during a one-month trial in 2019.

 

Disney stated that Piccolo signed up for the streaming service in 2019 and agreed to the subscriber agreement, which stipulated that any dispute, except small claims, he had with the company would be resolved through individual binding arbitration.

What in gods name has that got to do with your wife being poisoned in a restaurant?

[mr_lob]

Vile. I bet their lawyers cost more than the 50k!

[thesetat2013]

14 hours ago, freeworld said:

A large company like Disney and they are fighting to not pay out or trying to reduce settlement of US50k. Lets hope the legal system works the right way for this one.

 

Disney Net income US$2.354 billion (FY23)

 

CEO Bob Chapek's compensation package for the company’s fiscal 2021 hit about $32.5 million. That's more than double the $14.2 million he took home a year ago, according to Variety.

It was very sneaky to put such an agreement into a trial membership for streaming and for purchasing tickets to their theme park. Both should be invalidated by the courts since neither of them are related to eating in the restaurant. More importantly these hidden agreements should only be binding while utilizing their service for the purchase. Not for any incident that involves Disney. I think once the courts throw out the contracts as misleading and a scam that these Thai should sue for millions for the loss and the mental health of those having to wade through this mess. 

[Drumbuie]

The Mouse is *vile*. When I worked in the film business, our company had to sue Disney for a flagrant breach of contract and their initial response was, literally, " so sue us, suckers". 

 

[newnative]

      Outrageous and criminally stupid behavior by Disney.   Let's see . . .  Should I pay a tiny $50,000 settlement, especially since someone died and I am likely guilty of their death, or should I try an insanely stupid, blatantly unfair tactic of using the fine print in a streaming agreement in an attempt to block the piddly $50,000?  In favor?   Maybe save $50,000, but no guarantee.    Against?  Millions of dollars in extremely bad publicity and, likely, a much larger settlement in the making.   Reminder:  David is the good guy, Goliath the bad guy.  Not a good look for a family-focused company to always be the big, bad, bully.   Did they not learn a single thing from the Scarlett Johansson fiasco?

[bamnutsak]

The terms and conditions associated with ticket sale (entry to the park), which might also refer to arbitration, should rule.

 

Using the terms from the streaming service doesn't pass my smell test.

 

Oh, never mind...

 

15 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

The company added that Piccolo had also agreed to a similar agreement when he purchased tickets to the Epcot theme park in September last year.

 

 

Look companies have stacked the deck for the last twenty years re: arbitration (and NDAs) as part of tort reform.

 

 

 

 

[klauskunkel]

16 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

Multinational conglomerate Walt Disney dismissed a lawsuit filed by the husband of a Thai doctor

Disney has the judicial power to dismiss a lawsuit? Have they become judge, jury and court while I wasn't looking? Or is this Thaiger's style of wordplay while reporting?

 

[tweedledee2]

The husband is seeking damages in excess of $50,000 per Florida's Wrongful Death Act, including mental pain and suffering, loss of life, loss of income and medical/funeral expenses

[Dcheech]

Disney is vile ... maybe.  They probably should settle if it is small as 50K but  ... 

 

17 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

Kanokporn’s husband, Piccolo, decided to take legal action against Disney, accusing the company’s staff of recklessness

"The companys staff"  

The Raglan Road Irish Pub & Restaurant, where the food poisoning occurred is owned by two businessman from Dublin Ireland. The restaurant and owners are directly responsible for food preparation and allergy guidelines. Of course they have been sued. Disney is not the owner of that Pub/Restaurant, has nothing to do with the staff, the training or allergy food guidelines etc. They are the landowner, that is all. They do make sure all business have insurance for incidents exactly like this. 
 

This lawsuit & is a secondary, just trying to mine more money. Not a Disney fan,  but you can assume Raglan Road Irish Pubs Insurance has already provided a payout for the claim, a significant payout.


 

 

Edited August 15 by Dcheech

[kingstonkid]

1 hour ago, newnative said:

      Outrageous and criminally stupid behavior by Disney.   Let's see . . .  Should I pay a tiny $50,000 settlement, especially since someone died and I am likely guilty of their death, or should I try an insanely stupid, blatantly unfair tactic of using the fine print in a streaming agreement in an attempt to block the piddly $50,000?  In favor?   Maybe save $50,000, but no guarantee.    Against?  Millions of dollars in extremely bad publicity and, likely, a much larger settlement in the making.   Reminder:  David is the good guy, Goliath the bad guy.  Not a good look for a family-focused company to always be the big, bad, bully.   Did they not learn a single thing from the Scarlett Johansson fiasco?

 

The one 50K is not what they are worried about. It is the thousands of others that they will have to fight.

 

The challenge in these places is that you are eating at fast food restaurants.  Most of the staff can barely read and are cheap labour.  

 

They probably used the same fryers as they did for the other meals that were non veg

[impulse]

Wow.  A lot of issues to unpack...

 

Is Disney saying that I can't sue them if I signed a trial streaming membership 5 years ago and one of their trucks slams into me on a freeway in Ohio?

 

And what does The Mouse have to do with the menu at an independent contractor that only rents space?

 

My heart goes out to restaurant owners.  Seems like the only safe thing to do is hang a sign that says "Our food may contain dairy, nuts, pork, seafood, and other ingredients that we may not even know about.  We cannot agree to liability if that causes health or religious problems.  Please eat somewhere else if you don't agree".  But I'm sure that would be illegal in some places.

 

Regarding Disney...  I grew up wishing I could visit the happiest place on earth.  Got my wish in the mid '90s when I started working in SoCal and went to Disneyland.  Two trips on the same ticket.  My first and my last.  Ungodly expensive to get in, long lines for everything worth seeing, and ridiculous prices for all food, drink and pretty much everything.  That said, I had one Texas buddy who came every year on one of Disney's VIP programs, and his family loved it.  But he was pretty much made of money and didn't mind the VIP prices that reduced the queues because the park was only open to VIPs.

 

[Srikcir]

1 hour ago, klauskunkel said:

Disney has the judicial power to dismiss a lawsuit? Have they become judge, jury and court while I wasn't looking? Or is this Thaiger's style of wordplay while reporting?

 

"Disney is trying to have the lawsuit dismissed" (my bold). This is called a motion for summary judgement before any trial. If Disney is correct about its alleged legal position, a judge upon review of plaintiff's rebuttal may rule in favor of the defendant without a trial. But the defendant still has appeal rights.

[ignore it]

RIP  Poor lady.

 

There is a dark and evil side to the mouse.

 

[DrPhibes]

13 minutes ago, ignore it said:

RIP  Poor lady.

 

There is a dark and evil side to the mouse.

 

And the Jonas Brothers have felt it!

[Xonax]

18 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

Kanokporn’s husband, Piccolo, decided to take legal action against Disney, accusing the company’s staff of recklessness and demanding US$50,000 in compensation.

 

Why sue for just U$50,000

and not U$50,000,000?

Edited August 15 by Xonax

[DrPhibes]

7 minutes ago, Xonax said:

 

Why sue for just U$50,000

and not U$50,000,000?

$50,000 is the max for that specific charge in FL, there are other charges with monetary amounts to be determined but you can be assured it's going to be more than $50,000.  While no fan, I'm still not sure why Disney is being sued as they only lease the land to the independently owned restaurant but do make sure the restaurant carries proper insurance.

[Will B Good]

$50,000......seems a staggeringly small sum to sue for, for the death of your wife????

 

1. McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case (Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants): In 1994, Stella Liebeck was awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages after spilling hot coffee on herself, though the amount was later reduced. The case became famous as an example of excessive litigation.

2. Red Bull “Gives You Wings” Lawsuit: In 2014, Red Bull agreed to a $13 million settlement over its advertising claim that the drink “gives you wings,” which was deemed misleading.

3. Subway “Footlong” Lawsuit: Subway settled a lawsuit for $520,000 in 2016 after customers found that the “footlong” subs were slightly shorter than advertised.

[klauskunkel]

1 hour ago, Srikcir said:

"Disney is trying to have the lawsuit dismissed" (my bold). This is called a motion for summary judgement before any trial. If Disney is correct about its alleged legal position, a judge upon review of plaintiff's rebuttal may rule in favor of the defendant without a trial. But the defendant still has appeal rights.

"Multinational conglomerate Walt Disney dismissed a lawsuit"  (the article's bold). This is called a statement of fact.

[Will B Good]

2 minutes ago, klauskunkel said:

"Multinational conglomerate Walt Disney dismissed a lawsuit"  (the article's bold). This is called a statement of fact.

 

Not dismissed in a legal sense.

[klauskunkel]

23 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

Not dismissed in a legal sense.

... and that's why I added this:

Quote

Or is this Thaiger's style of wordplay while reporting?

 

[Will B Good]

Just now, klauskunkel said:

... and that's why I added this:

 

 

 

Got it.....👍

[TroubleandGrumpy]

50K is minimum amount to lodge the case in Florida - once started damages will be in the millions.

Disney lawyers doing their job - denying liability for any reasons they can think of and trying to get case dismissed.

 

IMO it is unlikely that the lawyers tactic will work because the Ts&Cs agreed to relate to streaming services only.

This will probably be ruled to proceed to a Court case.

Then Disney will probably make an offer.

Then the negotiations start between plaintiff and Disney and the Restaurant.

Hope the restaurant has good indemnity insurance - and the employee better get a good lawyer.

[Dcheech]

19 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

IMO it is unlikely that the lawyers tactic will work because the Ts&Cs agreed to relate to streaming services only.

This will probably be ruled to proceed to a Court case.

Then Disney will probably make an offer.

Then the negotiations start between plaintiff and Disney and the Restaurant.

Hope the restaurant has good indemnity insurance - and the employee better get a good lawyer.

Is not Disney doing this to increase potential litigation costs if they really want to go forward with this? Its is only a 50K pay out. Lawyers will eat up a lot of that, even if a joke of a case. It should be noted that  Disney is just the landord. They had nothing to do The Pub, its staff, training, allergy protocols etc. The plaintiffs are just trying to get a little cream on top of their payout by putting Disney on the spot& in the news.  The Raglan Road Irish Pubs's insurance company  has already settled. I can't imagine anything less than 7 figure amount and not in baht.



  

[Maestro]

15 hours ago, Dcheech said:

The Raglan Road Irish Pubs's insurance company  has already settled. I can't imagine anything less than 7 figure amount and not in baht.

 

That's interesting additional information. Thank you for posting it.

[Maestro]

This news article of 27 February 2024 mentions Piccolo's law suit against Raglan Road Irish Pub, but not its outcome:

https://www.allergicliving.com/2024/02/27/disney-and-pub-sued-after-doctor-dies-of-severe-allergic-reaction/

[john donson]

this is what big evil companies do... sue them till the costs bankrupt you... better go study a law degree for a few years, cheaper