In February, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts was named in a lawsuit filed in Orange County following the death of a woman who dined at Raglan Road in Disney Springs. A man named Jeffrey Piccolo filed a 19-page lawsuit against Disney and Raglan Road after his wife, Kanokporn Tangsuan, passed away on October 5th, 2023.
Disney Springs
The suit alleged that Piccolo, Piccolo’s mother, and Tangsuan dined at Raglan Road and informed their waiter of Tangsuan’s severe food allergies, requesting allergen-free food. Then, later that evening, Tangsuan passed away due to an allergic reaction.
Piccolo’s lawsuit states that his party questioned the waiter about menu items “to confirm whether they had allergens in them or not,” and after receiving confirmation that the food could be safely prepared, Tangsuan suddenly passed away that night after suffering from a severe acute allergic reaction.
Welcome to Disney World
According to Piccolo’s lawsuit, a medical examiner determined that Kanokporn Tangsuan’s cause of death “was as a result of anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nut in her system.” Piccolo is seeking more than $50,000 in damages under Florida’s wrongful death act, in addition to mental pain and suffering, loss of income, and funeral expenses. The suit argued that Disney did not properly teach its employees how to ensure that food indicated as “allergen-free” was safe.
Disney Springs
Now, Disney is responding to the lawsuit. According to CNN, Disney filed court documents to attempt to dismiss the lawsuit. The reasoning? The plaintiff, Jeffrey Piccolo, signed up for a one-month trial of Disney+ in 2019. Per the terms of the Disney+ trial, users are required to arbitrate all disputes with the company. Additionally, Disney stated that Piccolo used the Walt Disney World website to buy EPCOT park tickets; therefore, Disney is shielded from a lawsuit from the estate of Piccolo’s deceased wife, Kanokporn Tangsuan.
©Disney
Piccolo’s lawyer responded to Disney’s argument, claiming Disney’s argument is “preposterous,” “outrageously unreasonable and unfair,” according to CNN. He added that Disney 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+.”
Disney World
Disney later released a statement that said, “We are merely defending ourselves against the plaintiff’s attorney’s attempt to include us in their lawsuit against the restaurant.” We will continue to share updates about this developing case.
In the meantime, we’re always on the lookout for the latest Disney news, so stay tuned for more.
Our handy (and portable!) ebook guides make sure you get the best deals and can plan a vacation of a lifetime.
That is the strangest reason I’ve ever heard for trying to get a lawsuit dropped. And cannot imagine it could possibly be successful.
The Devil is in the details. You know the fine print that nobody ever reads and in this case, states that guests are required arbitrate all disputes with the company, not file a law suit against Disney. I’m sure Disney will settle, but just not in court.
I can not imagine Walt or Roy Disney going along with their attorney’s strategy to dismiss this wrongful death lawsuit under this pretense. This move seems very slimy to me and brand-damaging. It fits perfectly with Bob Iger’s values and culture, however. Iger has doubled down on his culture changes even though people have lost trust with Disney’s entertainment for their young children, and Disney filed a SEC report last year saying their political messaging is costing Disney business revenue. To Iger it’s full steam ahead. I will be glad with that man retires for good.
Lots of people with allergies………….take heed.
I can see that the suit should be direct with Raglan road as a subsidiary company rather than direct with Disney. However… WHAT THE HELL IS IN THE FINE PRINT IVE BEEN SIGNING.
By interacting with Disney services are we all agreeing that we cannot sue Disney? If I fall out of big thunder mountain I can’t sue because I bought tickets to magic kingdom on the Disney website? I didn’t think companies were allowed to hide anything significant in fine print. And I would say “you can’t sue us if we kill you” is an unexpected clause for a media streaming service!
What a horrible ugly thing for Disney to do. With all the issues this company is having, do they really think the publicity from this kind of thinking is going to do them any good?! How petty can one company be? In the long run, considering how bad this makes the company look, it would have been cheaper to pay the $50,000 (which is pretty cheap all things considered.) Iger should be ashamed.
Disney doesn’t own that business; they just rent space to them. The plaintiff has no reason to name Disney other than greed. Disney has no control over the hiring or training of the restaurant’s employees.
What a rotten thing Disney is doing here! The family is only asking for 50k! They are going to spend more defending this case than just paying it out! And Disney is teying to set a precedent here that people cant sue them because they have Disney plus? WHAT???
I don’t buy the reasoning on Disney’s part, but at the same time they are just going after the whale with lots of money even though Disney doesn’t even own Raglan Road.
I’m curious to know how this works as the restaurant is located in Disney Springs, but not technically owned by Disney. I agree someone should be held responsible if there were severe allergies here that were very clearly made aware to the restaurant. Just an honest thought on where the legality stands based on this.
That’s a crazy reason for Disney to try and have zero responsibility. Like I can see many reasonable arguments such as being a third party restaurant or the person possibly consuming something after leaving the restaurant but having Disney+ is crazy. As someone with allergies I know eating anyplace is a risk but this definitely makes me less thrilled about my upcoming Disney trip.
I’m correct that Disney doesn’t own Raglan Road…so why would they be getting sued? I agree the reasoning for their lawsuit dismissal is absolutely absurd, but they don’t own raglan road so why are they involved?
To my friends who commented on this article by pointing out that Disney does not own Raglan Road, but only leases the space in Disney Springs to that restaurant, I thank you. That fact does change my belief that Disney has no liability in this particular matter. I don’t know why Disney didn’t just cite that Raglan Road was a tennant for their reason in denying liability, instead of using the slimy and completely unrelated fact of the Disney + agreement for arbitration.
To all those questioning why Disney should be involved in this lawsuit, I can come up with two: 1. The restaurant leases property from Disney so it is on Disney property; 2. from another website I’ve learned that the couple based the choice to eat at this restaurant based on the information they got off of the Disney website itself stating how safe it was to eat here if you had allergies. So does Disney not check what the restaurants state on their sites? Would they not make them complicit?