2 Year Old Dragged into Water by Gator at Disney Resort

[Anonymous]

New to the discussion. I personally think that if it's not a swimming beach, it should not have been made to look like one.

Instead of only posting no swimming signs, they should have instead invested in a cement edge around the lagoon - to indicate that it's not mean to be waded into.

Having the area designed to look like a beach, with clear, shallow water lapping on sand is just too much temptation. Disney knew there were alligators in there. It was only a matter of time before this happened to someone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New to the discussion. I personally think that if it's not a swimming beach, it should not have been made to look like one.

Instead of only posting no swimming signs, they should have instead invested in a cement edge around the lagoon - to indicate that it's not mean to be waded into.

Having the area designed to look like a beach, with clear, shallow water lapping on sand is just too much temptation. Disney knew there were alligators in there. It was only a matter of time before this happened to someone.

It took over 40 years. It was a freak accident.

[Anonymous]

This scenario will totally be on somebody's Tort law final exam next semester. It's very much a gray area, whether a "do not swim" sign was reasonable warning to guests that it would also be literally life threatening to wade even at the very edge. I personally think Disney comes out on the short end of this one, but I don't disagree that arguments could be made both ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've said some terrible things on here. Really awful.

I'm pretty sure I called someone a cunt while arguing about a wipes Warner.
I've had some slightly less Christian things to say about housing policy.
I've played devil's advocate and baited people when a screaming match started over whether it's cool or not to get help from parents when paying for stuff.
I love to get into with you people about shit that doesn't matter.


But you Mother fucking assholes, who have called the parents " entitled" and " idiots"...

You deserve all the misery and tragedy life has to offer.

This thread is one of the worst I've read on DCUM. You may be on the side of right, but you're not helping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a man made Pond within a few feet of fire pits, lawn chairs, pools, slides. The family in no way suspected there were alligators in the pond.
The child may have been attacked if he was just on the sand. The alligator was very aggressive and looking for dinner.
There is no to blame the family for this tragic accident. They are going through the unthinkable. I'm sure they have a lifetime of regret ahead.

I think so too, he could have been two inches out of the water instead of two inches in the water and this same thing probably would have happened. Then the "omg he was SWIMMING!" semantics would be moot, but alas, he dared to touch his feet to the water. I really don't think a court would be terribly impressed at efforts to blur the distinction between swimming and having your feet a couple inches in the water.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've said some terrible things on here. Really awful.

I'm pretty sure I called someone a cunt while arguing about a wipes Warner.
I've had some slightly less Christian things to say about housing policy.
I've played devil's advocate and baited people when a screaming match started over whether it's cool or not to get help from parents when paying for stuff.
I love to get into with you people about shit that doesn't matter.


But you Mother fucking assholes, who have called the parents " entitled" and " idiots"...

You deserve all the misery and tragedy life has to offer.

+1. Pretty much this. I'm very disappointed in you DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

1+, Thank you. Can people who are not lawyers stop penning would-be treatises of the law? Offer opinions, yes, but legal opinions? This is 82 pages of ridiculousness.

+1000

+2000.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this talk about adequate signs! As if people actually pay attention to them? Really?

Go look at a Stop sign. It means "Stop". It is unambiguous. It does not mean "Slow Down, Someone Might be Coming". It means "Stop". And people ignore it all the time.

Tylenol has a warning. Don't take with alcohol. People ignore that all the time too!

Go to the beach. Caution Strong Current signs are routinely ignored and people who haven't the slightest idea what they're doing drown because they ignore the sign.

Maybe these people would have hightailed it away from the lake if it had a gators beware sign. I tend to doubt it, though.

I would bet that each one of you who complains about the lack of a warning sign routinely ignored warning signs putting you and your children at risk.

That's fine. If people don't pay attention to them, then that is their problem. Disney is covered.

If Disney does not put them up, then it *is* Disney's problem. And that is what we are saying. Disney had inadequate

signage.

No, it didn't. . Look at the CNN and other posts. "NO SWIMMING" . How much clearer does Disney need to be? and there was an adjacent pool with lifeguard to let the little ones have fun. Parents were watching movie. Kid goes off into no swimming area. horrific things happen. But that is florida. What do you expect of disney? TO red rope every single beach in the lagoon saying "some dangerous life forms like snapping turltes or alligators may be present - or sting rays - or crabs - or bugs"

I cannot believe how some of you will fight to your last breath to protect Disney like this. They are a large corporation, people. They are not your mother or your grandma. The Disney glitter has gotten into your lemonade.

New poster here. A large corporation is owned and staffed and run by real people. It does not exist in ether. There are real live human beings at Disney (or any company) who are probably incredibly distraught this happened. Not for any monetary or branding issue, but because it was a terrible tragedy to a little boy & family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a man made Pond within a few feet of fire pits, lawn chairs, pools, slides. The family in no way suspected there were alligators in the pond.
The child may have been attacked if he was just on the sand. The alligator was very aggressive and looking for dinner.
There is no to blame the family for this tragic accident. They are going through the unthinkable. I'm sure they have a lifetime of regret ahead.

I think so too, he could have been two inches out of the water instead of two inches in the water and this same thing probably would have happened. Then the "omg he was SWIMMING!" semantics would be moot, but alas, he dared to touch his feet to the water. I really don't think a court would be terribly impressed at efforts to blur the distinction between swimming and having your feet a couple inches in the water.

The reality is that it probably wouldn't have. The reason is because of the way alligators hunt and catch prey. The sense the movement in the water and head toward that. Smaller water disturbance is more manageable prey. So, if the kid had been on the beach and not moving in the water, that gator would have passed right by. They don't hunt on land and are rarely aggressive on land (unless harassed or protecting its nest).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

1+, Thank you. Can people who are not lawyers stop penning would-be treatises of the law? Offer opinions, yes, but legal opinions? This is 82 pages of ridiculousness.

+1000

+2000.

This thread is about liability. That's a legal concept. Uninformed drivel about whose fault it is in your own mind, but not in reality (where these things are decided or settled under the law) is not really interesting, persuasive, and doesn't have much place. I just feel like I'm trapped in a conversation I once had with my idiot brother-in-law who told me that when you drive a car you accept all the risks that that activity presents, including that the car just explodes while you're driving, and the manufacturer would not be at fault because driving a car is a risky activity. Exhausting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a man made Pond within a few feet of fire pits, lawn chairs, pools, slides. The family in no way suspected there were alligators in the pond.
The child may have been attacked if he was just on the sand. The alligator was very aggressive and looking for dinner.
There is no to blame the family for this tragic accident. They are going through the unthinkable. I'm sure they have a lifetime of regret ahead.

I think so too, he could have been two inches out of the water instead of two inches in the water and this same thing probably would have happened. Then the "omg he was SWIMMING!" semantics would be moot, but alas, he dared to touch his feet to the water. I really don't think a court would be terribly impressed at efforts to blur the distinction between swimming and having your feet a couple inches in the water.

The reality is that it probably wouldn't have. The reason is because of the way alligators hunt and catch prey. The sense the movement in the water and head toward that. Smaller water disturbance is more manageable prey. So, if the kid had been on the beach and not moving in the water, that gator would have passed right by. They don't hunt on land and are rarely aggressive on land (unless harassed or protecting its nest).

God that makes me so sick. This poor family. I hate alligators more than Isis right now. I know that's totally irrational. But I can't help it.

[Anonymous]

Disney was warned about the alligators and did nothing...
http://www.thewrap.com/gator-attack-disney-knew-of-problems-staffer-asked-for-fence-at-lagoon-exclusive/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sincerely doubt that anyone is gleeful about this. Or shoving this in the faces of the parents.

But maybe you'll reassess your own risk management. If you see a sign that says "No Swimming" you'll ask about its scope. You won't try to outsmart the sign-maker. "I wasn't swimming! I was wading!!!! I was toe-dangling! I wasn't swimming!"

Maybe when you visit someplace you will see unfamiliar situations differently. Rather than assuming that an area is safe (I have heard of no sign saying "Disney is a gator-free zone"), you'll ask to gain a bit better understanding of what hidden risks there might be. Maybe.

Um, did you see the post right before your post about luggage fees? Or the Dave Barry post pages back?

Yes, there are dcum posters taking glee in this child's death and the parents unimagineable pain.

I did. And I will posit that those posters are not "people" as that term is commonly used.

I do also think, though, the the people who are screaming about signage need to step back. The world is inherently dangerous and no one will apprise you of every risk. This is just life. And there are more risks when you leave your zone of familiarity. Ultimately, it is your job to keep you safe. To do some basic legwork. You cannot depend upon someone else's risk assessment and sign diction to keep you safe. If you think you've outsmarted the sign, you will eventually outsmart yourself.

The kid was 2 for chrissakes! Get off your damn pedestal. People like you make me physically ill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Best post on the thread. For those unfamiliar with the law, this is the bottom line. This is basic application of longstanding well established law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Best post on the thread. For those unfamiliar with the law, this is the bottom line. This is basic application of longstanding well established law.

That was mine! Please note that another poster called me simple minded in this thread!