This…is just beyond the pale!!!
On Oct. 5, 2023, Jeffrey Piccolo, his mother, and his wife, Kanokporn “Amy” Tangsuan, a 42-year-old doctor from New York, dined at an Irish pub at a Walt Disney World resort, choosing the location because it was advertised on Disney’s website as offering “allergen free food.” The doctor, who had a severe allergy to nuts and dairy, informed wait staff numerous times of her allergy when ordering the vegan fritter, scallops, onion rings and a vegan shepherd’s pie, and she was “guaranteed” the items were allergen-free. Less than an hour after finishing the meal, however, Tangsuan began having trouble breathing. Despite administering an EpiPen, she eventually died at a nearby hospital, with a medical examiner determining the cause of death as “anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nut in her system,” according to a lawsuit her husband filed in February. The tragic incident has now made headlines over Disney’s response, which Piccolo’s attorney Brian Denney said “borders on absurd.”
Full article, HERE from TownHall.
Yet ANOTHER reason not to spend a penny on ANYTHING Disney…
Disney lawyers say he agreed to settle any lawsuits against Disney out of court via the arbitration process when he signed up for a one-month trial of Disney+ in 2019!
Vert the ferk???
Soooo, if you EVER signed up anything Disney related, you’ve just waived your ‘rights’ to sue forever?
I don’t frikking think so!
But sadly, I’m betting this one will be tied up in court for years, just like Oberlin did to Gibson’s Bakery. Filed in 2017, the case was decided for the Gibsons in 2019, but they didn’t see the money until 2022, after the senior Gibson had passed away.
Now I’m wondering what other ‘programs’ out there are pulling the same crap in their TOS???
Sigh…
In Florida? Would you suppose the DA or AG offices have their eyes on this?
Every org thinks binding arbitration is the way to go. However. Patreon found out the hard way that each arbitration cost the company about $10K apiece for the service. Run athwart 100-1000 people with a legitimate complaint, company is out real money, and it’s a reportable legal and expense item.
Liquidate the media-academia-government complex and we will have less such insanity.
I wonder if he added the names of all the kitchen staff and the waiter? I’m sure they would change sides really quick.
It’s paywalled. Here are a non-paywalled versions.
I think this should go beyond just damages to punitive damages, just because of the immoral behavior of Disney. Iger sure hasn’t been paying attention to his fiduciary duty to his company. First the Reedy Creek bill, and now this. Of course, I’ve read he thinks the company is so big it doesn’t need to pay attention to the rules governing others.
Disney rents the space to the restaurant, they do not own it.
They should not be involved in the suit at all.
Somebody’s lawyer is going for the pot of gold instead.
And this is why my wife and I don’t buy any restaurant food. Because you can say you’re allergic to the staff and there’s a good chance that the staff won’t listen. Also a good chance that the staff is lying. And a good chance that someone on the staff will be a malicious arsehat and purposely toss the allergen in for funzies or because you aren’t the correct political party or you’re not the correct racial/sexual/religious makeup. Or because they’re non-English speaking illegals and don’t understand or give a copulation. Or they’re idiots. Or a combination of any of the above.
Seriously, if you have a deadly allergy, don’t. Just don’t. It sucks to not be able to trust anyone out there, but it’s your or your family member’s life that’s on the line.
Does this mean limiting what you do and where you go? Yes, especially if you want to live. It’s the fun part of allergies.
I don’t have food allergies, but if there’s an abundance of plant life, especially flowers, or perfumes, I gotta bail. My wife, on the other hand, peanuts, shellfish and gluten are her adversaries, and things like peanuts can activate a reaction just from touching, let alone something ‘safe’ being cooked in peanut oil.
Remember that Oberlin, for its hubris, did eventually get slapped down hard in a judgement.
Be patient, Disney’s reckoning is coming, not all at once but rather in the death by a thousand self-inflicted cuts. Honestly, that “show” is the best thing Disney’s put on in decades.
I question trusting the staff of a Disney restaurant in the first place, but advertising allergy free food created a liability that gives all the leverage needed for compensation.
Disney, in my opinion, is grasping at straws, if they think an agreement for something that doesn’t pertain to the event is binding, but when you know you’re losing, you have to try something. They should have settled out of court, but considering how long such battles can last, the ultimate result could be Disney filing bankruptcy, and the doctor spending much of his adult life trying to obtain his money. Disney probably thinks they can stall it long enough for the doctor to go away.
The TOS from all of these abusive companies are phrased in Mafia terms “Agree to do what we want or we will punish you and not allow you to use our services or any other companys’ services we can influence”.
This is just a wild grasping at at straws by Disney because they think that they will lose on the merits of the case.
These provisions used to be termed “contracts of adhesion” and used to be, and may still be, illegal, though it is unlikely that any court would find it so.
All- Good points! And agreed Gerry!
In my limited experience, you CANNOT rely on waitstaff AT ALL for food questions, or management below the ownership level, for that matter. The more options/choices of content of the food, the more likely it is that someone will screw it up. Even at the level of burgers, most places have problems with the choice of yes/no on cheese. Worker competency seems to be a lost concept these days.
That claim from Disney’s attorneys that a trial period of Disney+ means binding arbitration, is a ” hail Mary” attempt to dodge legal responsibilities. It never really stood a chance but they figured what the hell…we’ll give it a shot. It’s not as if Disney had much of a chance at prevailing on this case so why not try something ridiculous.
My dear NFO, if people will eat at Disney… Still, hope the family sues ’em for billions.
My wife and I have problems with gluten; for her a full allergy, for me serious intolerance (with painful and disgusting aftereffects–“sluicing at both ends” to quote Monty Python).
One taqueria in town has known-safe dishes, but I found the shop-made sauces are a Mexican Roulette. On some days, they’re thickened with corn starch, on others, flour. Depends on what’s handy, I think.
Cholula or Tapatio ain’t as tasty, but rather safer…
I don’t see the clause beating the “four corners” doctrine of contract law. In other words, it only pertains to issue specifically addressed in the contract i.e. the Disney+ trial subscription. Any judge worth a shit would smack Disney in the nuts for even attempting this kind of interpretation.