Anonymous wrote:

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 wrote:This will not go well for Disney:

"Alfred Smith of Charleston, S.C., said he alerted a Grand Floridian employee Tuesday night after seeing a gator in the lagoon. He thinks it's the same one that attacked the boy less an hour later.

"I did warn another family of three that had small kids too close to the water and they along with another family took their children and left," Smith said via email."

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/tourism/os-disney-alligator-history-20160615-story.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Lol because they don't want you to spoil their fun of arguing with strangers about it! Levelheadedness is boring.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess they should have other signs too. In front of all the vegetation warning of water moccasins and rattlesnakes. Bats at night?

It is easy to lay blame. It is easy to say "If they'd only posted a sign". Random, senseless events add disorder to a world we try to make well ordered and predictable and therefore presumably more secure. But face it, had there been a sign, chances are better than even the kid would have been right where he was. Not because of neglect, dad would have diligently looked to see if there were a gator there. And it is very very unlikely that he would have seen a gator lurking in that vegetation swimming toward shore at dusk.

Had there been a sign about gators, people would still have let their small children near the water? You have a poor opinion of the intelligence of rest of the country and a poor opinion of parents' desire to protect their children. I'm sure there still would be boneheads feeding alligators, but at least the parents of small children would have been warned.

There WAS a warning.
It said "No Swimming."
It doesn't matter if the "no swimming" is because of potential amoebas or because they are worried about drowning or because of alligators or if it's because Disney is just mean and doesn't want people to enjoy the lake.

It's private property. The owners say "no swimming" and people need to follow the rules. Period.

Well, okay, but seriously. These people are paying to enjoy the accommodations of a resort. You're not supposed to go in the pools at night, but that doesn't mean that a reasonable person would assume that they have electrified the pool so that anyone who touches the water is electrocuted, or that you'll be gunned down by security for trespassing. I mean, it's nice to let your guests know when the penalty for violating the rules is death, versus getting yelled at.

Exactly-"paying to enjoy the accommodations of a resort." The resort made it quite clear that swimming/wading in the lagoons was NOT an accommodation. They apparently thought the rules didn't apply to THEM. Their child paid a steep price for his parents sense of entitlement.

The sign didn't specify wading, did it? Or being near the edge of the water? The alligator didn't even need to be in the water at all to grab a child close to the edge. You sound almost gleeful that these parents lost their child.

Again---just like the kids that antagonize their siblings with "I'm not touching you!"--these parents "We're not swimming!" Rules don't apply to them, as far as they are concerned.
I'm not "gleeful" and don't think I sound that way. I'm actually angry that an innocent child paid the price of his parents sense of entitlement.

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Anonymous wrote:

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!

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).