Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Well this is subjective. I would see no swimming and stay away from the water. Clearly others need more explicit reasoning. But I also guarantee there are people who would see a sign that says beware of gators and still wade in that water if they didn't see gators AT THAT MOMENT. There is no way to know in this case if different signage would have made a difference. They may have hedged their bets anyway if no gator was in sight.

I see a sign that says no swimming and I don't let my kids swim. Maybe I let them walk along the edge because that isn't swimming and the risks of swimming don't seem to apply. I see a sign that says beware of alligators and we high tail it out of there. Of course it would make people act differently.

Anonymous wrote: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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Well this is subjective. I would see no swimming and stay away from the water. Clearly others need more explicit reasoning. But I also guarantee there are people who would see a sign that says beware of gators and still wade in that water if they didn't see gators AT THAT MOMENT. There is no way to know in this case if different signage would have made a difference. They may have hedged their bets anyway if no gator was in sight.

Maaajor stretch in logic here. Of course it would make a difference.

Anonymous wrote: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.

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Well this is subjective. I would see no swimming and stay away from the water. Clearly others need more explicit reasoning. But I also guarantee there are people who would see a sign that says beware of gators and still wade in that water if they didn't see gators AT THAT MOMENT. There is no way to know in this case if different signage would have made a difference. They may have hedged their bets anyway if no gator was in sight.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Well this is subjective. I would see no swimming and stay away from the water. Clearly others need more explicit reasoning. But I also guarantee there are people who would see a sign that says beware of gators and still wade in that water if they didn't see gators AT THAT MOMENT. There is no way to know in this case if different signage would have made a difference. They may have hedged their bets anyway if no gator was in sight.

Maaajor stretch in logic here. Of course it would make a difference.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Well this is subjective. I would see no swimming and stay away from the water. Clearly others need more explicit reasoning. But I also guarantee there are people who would see a sign that says beware of gators and still wade in that water if they didn't see gators AT THAT MOMENT. There is no way to know in this case if different signage would have made a difference. They may have hedged their bets anyway if no gator was in sight.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think any of these questions have black and white answers. If Disney is sued, the issue will be whether and to what extent they had a duty to this family, and whether and to what extent they were negligent in fulfilling any duty they had. A "reasonable person" standard is typically applied to this sort of analysis, and I don't think it's black and white whether a reasonable person would have known there were gators in that water capable and inclined to eat a small child. Lots of people here saying "only an idiot wouldn't know", but LOTS of people also saying "I would have had no idea." Would be a really interesting question to see hashed out in court, although I can't imagine Disney will let it go that far. The damage to Disney's image just from media coverage of a trial would make it worth it for Disney to just pay up quickly and hope it goes away quickly.

The concepts of attractive nuisance and Disney's own knowledge of the danger, plus the adequacy of the warning will all be at play, too. The reasonable person analysis is complicated by the property owner's behavior here.

Anonymous wrote:And, really, the signs should warn about gators because this could have happened even if the child wasn't actually in the water at all. People hanging out on those beaches need to be alert, particularly at night.

Anonymous wrote: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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

If you want to go to Florida and make fun of Florida and not read up on how to stay safe in Florida, joke is on you.

Anonymous wrote: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 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?