Corporate Law: Disney Wrongful Death Lawsuit

Written by Anna Ramesh, Kurt Striegel, Moksha Davaloor, and Akhil Adusumilli

Edited by Anna Ramesh and Liv Moreno

What is the case

Disney Parks are being sued because of improperly making food and making sure it is safe to eat for people who have accommodations with food. NPR states that it has "negligence of preparing Tangsuans food and improperly training their employees to make sure that the food is allergy safe." Kanokporn Tangsuan experienced a fatal allergic reaction to food she had in a restaurant located within a shopping center owned by The Walt Disney Company.

Jeffrey Piccolo wants to pursue justice for his wife and to also spread awareness about people with food allergies.

Wrongful Death Lawsuit

A wrongful death lawsuit is a civil claim that is filed by the family or estate of a deceased person. The intention behind this filing is to seek compensation for their death. The compensation in a wrongful death lawsuit is usually for financial losses, such as medical bills or loss of financial support.

English Common Law created the concept of a wrongful death act, but the provision granting the right to sue originated in the Fatal Accidents Act of 1846, also known as Lord Campbell's Act. The United States adopted this policy, with each state having their own laws related to what constitutes a valid lawsuit, and other related factors.

In Piccolo's suit against Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, Jeffrey Piccolo filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S. Inc. and Raglan Road Irish Pub in February 2024 on behalf of his wife. The lawsuit is over the death of Piccolo's wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, who died from an allergic reaction after eating at Raglan Road, one of the restaurants located within the parks.

Disney's Response

Disney's reaction to the lawsuit has been both highly publicized and incredibly controversial. Their initial motion argued that the case must be dismissed as Piccolo had a subscription to Disney+. In subscribing to the streaming service, Piccolo had accepted terms that waived the right to sue the company. Part of the Disney+ subscription includes an agreement to reach settlements with Disney outside of the court.

As Piccolo had agreed to such terms, Disney attorneys created a motion to dismiss the case.

A motion is a formal request for action made by a party during the litigation process. Motions often ask for a specific decision, a delay, or as seen in this case, a dismissal of the lawsuit altogether.

The motion to dismiss is typically filed before a case goes to trial. Motions to dismiss can be based on jurisdiction (i.e. the court may not have authority over a specific issue, or the case may be filed in the wrong court altogether), a statute of limitations (the claim is no longer valid as it has 'expired,' or been filed past the allotted time period), or simply due to an incorrect, vague or unfactual claim. Disney's motion to dismiss is slightly different, as it deals with a previously signed agreement , rather than jurisdiction or filing (i.e. the case is being dismissed based on an agreement between the two parties instead of an issue with the courts). In Disney's case, the previous agreement (embedded in the Disney+ contract) was an agreement to arbitrate.

Arbitration

An agreement to arbitrate, or arbitration, involves solving a dispute outside the courts. In arbitration, the conflict is submitted to an impartial third party, aptly named an arbitrator. The arbitrator acts like a judge, listening to both parties and coming to a binding agreement, known as the 'award.' While the actual judgment closely resembles a court case, arbitration differs from court in three fundamental ways. First, arbitration is voluntary, and must be agreed by both parties (which is why Disney's initial motion to dismiss was so controversial). Secondly, unlike a court case, an arbitrator's decision is not public record, and is confidential (unless both parties agree otherwise). Finally, it is significantly more difficult (and rarer) to appeal a decision made through this process, unlike a court case that can be submitted to an appellate court. Other differing factors include cost (arbitration is typically less expensive), and duration (cases in this system usually move faster).

Results

Disney has withdrawn its motion to compel arbitration, a legal request by one party to resolve a dispute through private discussions and debates rather than in court. This allows Jeffrey Piccolo's lawsuit to proceed. It guarantees that the case will be tried in court with standard procedures rather than through private arbitration.

What happens now?

The lawsuit will now proceed in court. This includes the pre-trial process: discovery, where both parties are supposed to share all the evidence with each other, and possibly depositions, or interviews, of witnesses. If a settlement is not reached, the case would then proceed to trial before either a jury or a judge to determine liability and damages. Piccolo will have to prove negligence by Disney and the restaurant. Naturally, the defense shall contest these allegations.

Relevance to the legal field

This case highlights the intersection of consumer arbitration agreements and liability in wrongful death claims. Specifically, it raises important questions about:

• The enforceability of arbitration clauses in consumer contracts and their applicability to unrelated events (e.g., wrongful death).

• Ethical considerations for corporations invoking arbitration to limit legal exposure.

• The potential for public backlash influencing corporate legal strategies, as Disney's reversal demonstrates.

When viewed alongside cases such as Domino's Pizza (2019)—where a New York man sued after his wife's fatal allergic reaction, raising issues of duty of care owed by restaurants—and ongoing disputes involving arbitration clauses with companies like Uber and Ticketmaster, this case underscores growing scrutiny over the broad application of arbitration agreements. These cases highlight the tension between protecting consumer rights and corporations' attempts to limit liability, shaping the evolving debate over fairness in the justice system, with this case also adding to the tension.