Walt Disney Company has raised significant questions regarding the intersection of corporate liability and consumer agreements. In this case, the plaintiff, a widower whose wife allegedly died due to an allergic reaction after consuming food from a Disney-themed event, found his legal claims thwarted by the terms of service associated with Disney+. The court’s ruling underscores the complexities surrounding digital contracts and their potential implications for consumer rights and corporate accountability.
The crux of the court's decision rested on the assertion that by subscribing to Disney+, the plaintiff had implicitly agreed to certain terms that limited Disney's liability in cases involving personal injury or death. This raises critical issues about how well consumers understand and consent to such agreements. Digital platforms often embed lengthy terms of service agreements that many users may not read thoroughly, leading to questions about informed consent. This case exemplifies how corporations can utilize these legal frameworks to shield themselves from liability, potentially at the expense of vulnerable individuals seeking justice.
Company lawyers also claim that because Piccolo used the Walt Disney Parks’ website to buy Epcot Center tickets, Disney is shielded from a lawsuit from the estate of Piccolo’s deceased wife, Kanokporn Tangsuan, who died of a reaction to severe food allergies.
Walt Disney Parks and Resort is “explicitly seeking to bar its 150 million Disney+ subscribers from ever prosecuting a wrongful death case against it in front of a jury even if the case facts have nothing to with Disney+,” Denney wrote in court papers as a response.
Piccolo is seeking damages in excess of $50,000 pursuant to Florida’s Wrongful Death Act, as well as damages for mental pain and suffering, loss of companionship and protection, loss of income and medical and funeral expenses.
Piccolo accused the Florida resort and a restaurant of negligence in his wife's death. He said in his complaint that they told the server at Raglan Road that Tangsuan, who was a physician with NYU Langone Health, had severe allergies. The server told the family that the food would be made allergy-free, according to the complaint.
The family ordered their meals and asked again about the food when the dishes came out without "allergen free flags," the complaint says. They were once again assured by the server, it says.
They confirmed that he did create a Disney+ account on his PlayStation in 2019, but he believes he canceled the subscription during the trial because he hasn't found any charges associated with it after that point.
Piccolo's lawyers accused the company of trying to deprive Tangsuan's estate of its right to a jury trial.
Disney has argued that these terms of use include a clause that applies to “all disputes” including those involving “The Walt Disney Company or its affiliates” of which Walt Disney Parks and Resorts is a part.
Read more
Gena Rowlands ' The Notebook' actress dies aged 94
First Buds built for Gemini "Pixel Buds Pro 2"
Sarah H
Also on site :
- Autograph Collection Hotels Debuts in the Philippines with The Farm at San Benito – A Sanctuary for Nurturing Growth
- One-year-old twins diagnosed with same rare and incurable condition
- Tom Hiddleston teases Loki’s ‘monumental’ return in Avengers: Doomsday: ‘Never been done before’