Lawyer sends warning to Disney+ users after woman died having allergic reaction at restaurant

A lawyer has weighed in on the ongoing Jeffrey J. Piccolo lawsuit after it emerged that Disney were trying to dismiss a case over the death of his wife.

Last October, Piccolo visited the Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant in Disney World Orlando with his wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, and his mother.

Piccolo alleges that staff at restaurant were made aware that Tangsuan had dairy and nut allergies, to which they were reassured that the food was 'unequivocally' safe for her to eat.

However, Tangsuan suffered an allergic reaction 45 minutes after eating the meal.

Despite having her EpiPen administered, Tangsuan was later be pronounced dead at a local hospital.

Her cause of death was ruled as accidental due to a severe allergic reaction (anaphylaxis).

A lawsuit filed against Disney

Piccolo filed a lawsuit for $50,000 in damages against the restaurant and the Walt Disney Company back in February, claiming that his wife's death would have been 'totally preventable' should 'proper protocols' have been followed.

The complaint adds that Piccolo accused Disney of failing to 'educate, train and/or instruct its employees [to] make sure food indicated as allergen free or requested to be made allergen free, was in fact free of allergens'.

Disney filing to have the lawsuit dismissed

However, Disney has since filed to have the lawsuit dismissed and instead sent to arbitration due to Piccolo previously agreeing to a series of terms and conditions when signing up for a Disney+ account and purchasing tickets for the theme park.

West Palm Beach attorney Brian Denney has since called the move 'outrageously unreasonable and unfair', and asked the court not to enforce arbitration.

A lawyer's input

Another lawyer has now weighed in on the debate, creating a video on TikTok which explains what happens when you sign up to Disney's terms and conditions.

The lawyer - who goes by the username @thelawyerangela on the platform - explained what is outlined in the Disney terms of use clause.

Regarding what is outlined in the Disney terms of use, Angela said: "It says any dispute between you and us must be resolved by the individual binding arbitration."

She went on to explain that a court could theoretically rule this as 'unconscionable', but added that 'on balance there's arbitration clauses are usually upheld'.

Disney's motion explained: "The first page of the Subscriber Agreement states, in all capital letters, that ‘any dispute between You and Us, Except for Small Claims, is subject to a class action waiver and must be resolved by individual binding arbitration’."

What has Disney said?

A spokesperson for Disney told LADbible Group: "We are deeply saddened by the family’s loss and understand their grief. Given that this restaurant is neither owned nor operated by Disney, we are merely defending ourselves against the plaintiff’s attorney’s attempt to include us in their lawsuit against the restaurant."

Disney added that it's 'position in no way affects any wrongful death or other claims the plaintiff may have against the restaurant'.