2 Year Old Dragged into Water by Gator at Disney Resort

[Anonymous]

The reasons why don't really matter. Let's say a kid contracted flesh eating bacteria from this pond or toxic waste poisoning. Would Disney be liable for that because he went in the water against warnings not to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disney will have to spend millions in public relations to restore its name as the 'safest place on earth.' I, personally, will never think of Disney the same way again.

And as far as some of you blaming the parents, I'll say it for them....kiss my ass.

Nobody ever calles Disney the safest place on earth, what are you smoking?

Try googling. Do people like you ever check anything out before opening your mouth?

Says the person who doesn't know there are gators in Florida. The irony...

For the last time. We all know there are gators in Florida. What we do not expect is that a gator would grab a kid from a mad made lake at Disney World when Disney World encourages families to spend time on the beach at night.

Your comment does nothing to change my position. In fact, it makes you look even more ignorant.

Ok. But the law looks at what the reasonable person understands. As well as the duties a hotel operator had to its customers (including creating an attractive nuisance and its responsibility to adequately warn its customers of dangers. A hotel has higher duties to its customers than a regular person has to a friend visiting. A hotel that has a very high % of people from out of state has a higher duty to warn than a person does when inviting another person from Florida over. This is absolutely not a slam dunk situation for Disney World. It could absolutely be found to have violated its duties to this family and been negligence.

[Anonymous]

^^ sorry for the typos. On a phone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, when you read the sign on a cup of coffee from McDonalds that says, "Caution Contents hot" do you automatically assume that it's hot, but probably not really that hot. So, you take the chance of burning your tongue and drink? Is that why people are saying that the "No Swimming" sign should have included "No Wading"? Are they ASSUMING that the sign is there just because there is no lifeguard? Are people really this dense?

Yes.

[Anonymous]

I have seen comments that Disney erred on the wrong side of a cost-benefit analysis. So didn't the family? They saw signs that said no swimming. But they took their chances that there were no animals/sharp objects/bacteria/dangerous boats and let him go in the water. We all do this- some rules we take our chances and break. Most of the time it's fine. Sometimes it's not, but we can't say "I didn't know there was a speed limit! or "but nobody specified the coffee was THIS many degrees hot!" They didn't deserve this at all, it's awful, but how is Disney responsible for them taking a chance against posted rules?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In addition to signs, there should be a fence around the lake.

Oh like we fence off oceans and forests?

Right? People are such idiots. Who needs common sense when someone can build a fence and think for you.

This is private property! Big difference. If you step in quicksand in a forest and die, too bad. If your neighbor has you over for a party and doesn't tell you there is quicksand in the backyard in a place that it looks pretty reasonable to walk near, then your neighbor will be liable if you get sucked in and die. You don't assume the risk in the same way. This concept has developed over centuries and makes a lot of sense.

Private property but the water feeds into other bodies of water in Florida which are NOT private. Why don't you get that?

And, using your analogy, if your neighbor doesn't tell you about quicksand but says not to walk in a certain area and you do, it's your fault. Your list of dangers don't have to be itemized.

Yes but if neighbor and his wife see you and other guests walking in the quicksand throughout the party and they don't say anything and look the other way because they don't want to mess up the ambiance at their party by making a scene, then said neighbor is at fault.

Nope. You still are. The sign is all that's needed.

[Anonymous]

Thank you, to my other lawyer friends who are helping to explain how the law, which has evolved over centuries, based on notions of fairness and common sense (yes! For real!), works here. Hotels, especially a hotel with a reputation like Disney's, cannot invite guests to movie-set looking beaches at night where the hotel knows there are alligators, throw up a "no swimming" sign, look the other way when children are near/in the water every night, and then claim people should know there are probably alligators (flesh eating bacteria, snakes, and other deadly hazards people have mentioned) when someone dies. If this family were at a campground, the Darwinian crazies on here would win, but they weren't. These are not new concepts or just differences of opinion. This is how developed society has decided, through the law, to treat these situations.

[Anonymous]

I couldn't believe it when I read in an earlier post that Disney World now offers water sports, but holy cow they do!

I think that they are using the same lake to water ski, tube, etc. as this child was killed.

https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/recreation/contemporary-resort/sammy-duvall-watersports-centre/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who goes to Florida and doesn't know there are alligators everywhere? There's ar eason the Gators are our State U. mascot. Pretty cool one too.

We've built our homes, resorts, etc. in their habitat and they've adapted to co-existence. Alligator attacks on humans are very very rare. Sorry that this happened, but people can be so ignorant?

If you went on a float trip on the idyllic Bourbon river in Missouri would you know not to get out of the raft, inner tube or canoe in slow moving, gentle sections to swim because those parts are likely to have dangerous strong undertows? Probably not. But every native of rural mid Missouri knows this to be a dangerous risk from the time they are young and go floating, tubing or fishing.

It looks like a great place to swim and an urbanite with no experience with the rivers would not know this.

Do you know not to let your kids run off steam at a lush, mowed grassy field in Alabama? Most people from out of state might do that if they are driving thru and need to stop at a rest stop. Someone from Maine is not going to know to have their kids let off steam in the sidewalks instead of grass due to aggressive fireants hidden in the sod.

The list goes on.

So a family from Nebraska, where wading in a lake like that, yes even with the algae, is commonplace and not considered to be swimming, could very reasonably have no idea that alligators would likely be at the shore ready to drag their baby under the water.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reasons why don't really matter. Let's say a kid contracted flesh eating bacteria from this pond or toxic waste poisoning. Would Disney be liable for that because he went in the water against warnings not to?

The sign did not say stay awatly from the water. The sign said no swimming. The child was not swimming in the water. He was wading at the edge of the shore. Not swimming.

[Anonymous]

^ if there's a sign in some Alabama grass saying "don't enter grass" and you do anyway, yes, it's your problem if you get bitten by fire ants. If you assumed it was a sign that was for kicks, or because sometimes the grass is wet and you can fall, that's your problem for making the wrong inference. If the Bourbon River tubing co says "do not jump out in the shallow part of the river" you don't get to decide your own reasons for why that might be, jump out, and then cry foul.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reasons why don't really matter. Let's say a kid contracted flesh eating bacteria from this pond or toxic waste poisoning. Would Disney be liable for that because he went in the water against warnings not to?

The sign did not say stay awatly from the water. The sign said no swimming. The child was not swimming in the water. He was wading at the edge of the shore. Not swimming.

He was knee deep in water. No swimming means don't get in the water. Don't know what else to say. I've seen these signs thousands of times and never thought they meant any thing other than keep your butt outta this water. Clearly, YMMV.

[Anonymous]

People are going to Disneyworld, not Florida. They aren't planning a "Florida" vacation. They are going to an iconic American amusement park. They aren't bothering to learn about Florida. And just so you know, most people make fun of Florida.

[Anonymous]

The sign doesn't really matter. The child was not swimming. Had the sign said "beware of alligators," it would have changed the behavior of the family. So, it seems as though the signage was inadequate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who goes to Florida and doesn't know there are alligators everywhere? There's ar eason the Gators are our State U. mascot. Pretty cool one too.

We've built our homes, resorts, etc. in their habitat and they've adapted to co-existence. Alligator attacks on humans are very very rare. Sorry that this happened, but people can be so ignorant?

Yes, and your hockey team is the Panthers, despite the fact that they have been driven to the brink of extinction. Your point?