A lawsuit against Disney World over the death of Kanokporn Tangsuan due to a food allergy has been met with Disney’s motion to dismiss the suit. Tangsuan’s husband, Jeffrey Piccolo, claims the theme park failed to take his wife’s food allergy into account, leading to her death. However, Disney argues that the suit should be dismissed because the couple signed a waiver releasing Disney from liability.

The incident occurred in 2019 when Jeffrey and Kanokporn were visiting Disney World. Kanokporn suffered from a severe food allergy and the couple informed the park staff of her condition. Despite their efforts to inform Kanokporn of her allergy, she was served a dish containing the allergen, which ultimately led to her death.

However, Disney argues that the case should be dismissed because the couple had signed a waiver releasing Disney from liability. The incident occurred in 2019 when Jeffrey and his wife Kanokporn visited Disney World. Kanokporn had a severe food allergy and the couple informed park staff of their condition. Despite their efforts to communicate their allergy, Kanokporn was served a dish containing the allergen, which ultimately led to her death.

According to the New York Post:

In the motion filed May 31 in Orange County District Court in Florida, Disney argued that the Disney+ subscription agreement Piccolo signed years earlier for his PlayStation provided that all disputes, except for small claims, were to be “resolved through individual, binding arbitration.”

The company added that Piccolo agreed to similar terms when he purchased tickets to visit Epcot theme park through the My Disney Experience app in September last year, a month before the ill-fated trip.

According to court documents, Disney argued that Piccolo had to agree to the arbitration agreement in both contracts before the purchase.

Piccolo’s lawyers called the claim “absurd” and “completely false.”

“The notion that terms to which a consumer agrees when creating a free trial account for Disney+ would forever deprive that consumer of the right to a jury trial in disputes with a Disney affiliate or subsidiary is so egregiously unreasonable and unfair that it shocks the judicial conscience, and this Court should not enforce such an agreement,” the lawyers wrote.

In response to the lawsuit, Disney filed a motion to dismiss the case, saying the couple signed a waiver releasing the park from liability. The waiver was part of the tickets they purchased and stated that visitors accepted the risks associated with visiting the theme park, including food-related incidents. Jeffrey criticized Disney’s attempt to dismiss the lawsuit, calling it an “outrageous” move.

He argues that the waiver does not absolve Disney of responsibility for his wife’s death, as it is their duty to ensure the safety of all visitors, especially those with known allergies. Disney has not yet commented on the case, and the outcome is uncertain.

His lawyers added that it was absurd to assume that by signing up to an internet streaming service, Disney would be absolved of any responsibility for something it might have done to a customer. The aggrieved husband said in his lawsuit that his wife had a very detailed conversation with the bar staff about her nut and dairy allergies and assumed that they understood her medical problem and would prepare her food according to her needs. However, this ultimately was not the case and she died from her allergy to the food she ate there.

The lawsuit raises important questions about the responsibility of businesses to accommodate customers with allergies and the legal implications of signing waivers that release them from liability. The next court date for the case is set for October 2 in an Orange County, Florida, court.

*****