Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, ultimately, it was an accident. The parents should not be blamed. Disney should not be blamed. They will pay, which they should, but this was an incredibly unusual, freak accident. Sometimes, nobody is at fault.

How can you say, at this point, that Disney should not be blamed?

Because they cannot control mother nature, and had no reason to assume any child would be attacked and eaten by a gator on their property since it has never happened in the history of the park. And because there WERE no swimming signs. But since it did happen on their property, they should and will pay the family some damages. Held entirely to blame? No. They didn't have any foresight that this was an expected thing to happen.

It doesn't have to happen in their park for them to be liable re: signage. As you said, you can't control mother nature. So it's reasonable for Disney to assume there are gators in that area. In fact, they remove gators from their properties, so they DID know. So they have water with gators in them, and the response is to make a beachfront, invite families to gather there, and not post signage warning of said alligators (who do come out of the water onto shorelines to attack prey, and are very fast at doing so). Disney didn't post signage because it was very 'unDisney', i.e. it would interfere with the image they were trying to create, and would probably seriously affect the use of that beachfront by guests. They bet on the fact the gators would not be a problem. They bet wrong.

Ok. That's your opinion. I happen to think some accidents are so unusual as to be unable to pinpoint specific blame. If you disagree, that's fine.

I'm a lawyer and I don't think Disney should be held liable, but I'm sure they will pay. What ever happened to personal responsibility? Something bad happens and we're always looking to blame someone else? FL has a gator management program and Disney more likely than not adhered to it. Furthermore, the parents had a responsibility to ensure their toddler didn't wade into water at night that was posted "no swimming." Why should Disney be responsible for an accident caused by mother nature in an area that warned people to stay out of?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, ultimately, it was an accident. The parents should not be blamed. Disney should not be blamed. They will pay, which they should, but this was an incredibly unusual, freak accident. Sometimes, nobody is at fault.

How can you say, at this point, that Disney should not be blamed?

Because they cannot control mother nature, and had no reason to assume any child would be attacked and eaten by a gator on their property since it has never happened in the history of the park. And because there WERE no swimming signs. But since it did happen on their property, they should and will pay the family some damages. Held entirely to blame? No. They didn't have any foresight that this was an expected thing to happen.

It doesn't have to happen in their park for them to be liable re: signage. As you said, you can't control mother nature. So it's reasonable for Disney to assume there are gators in that area. In fact, they remove gators from their properties, so they DID know. So they have water with gators in them, and the response is to make a beachfront, invite families to gather there, and not post signage warning of said alligators (who do come out of the water onto shorelines to attack prey, and are very fast at doing so). Disney didn't post signage because it was very 'unDisney', i.e. it would interfere with the image they were trying to create, and would probably seriously affect the use of that beachfront by guests. They bet on the fact the gators would not be a problem. They bet wrong.

Ok. That's your opinion. I happen to think some accidents are so unusual as to be unable to pinpoint specific blame. If you disagree, that's fine.

Np here, if you read legal opinions on this they are overwhelmingly putting Disney at fault as pp said. I am in complete agreement that Disney is at fault.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, ultimately, it was an accident. The parents should not be blamed. Disney should not be blamed. They will pay, which they should, but this was an incredibly unusual, freak accident. Sometimes, nobody is at fault.

How can you say, at this point, that Disney should not be blamed?

Because they cannot control mother nature, and had no reason to assume any child would be attacked and eaten by a gator on their property since it has never happened in the history of the park. And because there WERE no swimming signs. But since it did happen on their property, they should and will pay the family some damages. Held entirely to blame? No. They didn't have any foresight that this was an expected thing to happen.

It doesn't have to happen in their park for them to be liable re: signage. As you said, you can't control mother nature. So it's reasonable for Disney to assume there are gators in that area. In fact, they remove gators from their properties, so they DID know. So they have water with gators in them, and the response is to make a beachfront, invite families to gather there, and not post signage warning of said alligators (who do come out of the water onto shorelines to attack prey, and are very fast at doing so). Disney didn't post signage because it was very 'unDisney', i.e. it would interfere with the image they were trying to create, and would probably seriously affect the use of that beachfront by guests. They bet on the fact the gators would not be a problem. They bet wrong.

Ok. That's your opinion. I happen to think some accidents are so unusual as to be unable to pinpoint specific blame. If you disagree, that's fine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, ultimately, it was an accident. The parents should not be blamed. Disney should not be blamed. They will pay, which they should, but this was an incredibly unusual, freak accident. Sometimes, nobody is at fault.

How can you say, at this point, that Disney should not be blamed?

Because they cannot control mother nature, and had no reason to assume any child would be attacked and eaten by a gator on their property since it has never happened in the history of the park. And because there WERE no swimming signs. But since it did happen on their property, they should and will pay the family some damages. Held entirely to blame? No. They didn't have any foresight that this was an expected thing to happen.

It doesn't have to happen in their park for them to be liable re: signage. As you said, you can't control mother nature. So it's reasonable for Disney to assume there are gators in that area. In fact, they remove gators from their properties, so they DID know. So they have water with gators in them, and the response is to make a beachfront, invite families to gather there, and not post signage warning of said alligators (who do come out of the water onto shorelines to attack prey, and are very fast at doing so). Disney didn't post signage because it was very 'unDisney', i.e. it would interfere with the image they were trying to create, and would probably seriously affect the use of that beachfront by guests. They bet on the fact the gators would not be a problem. They bet wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, ultimately, it was an accident. The parents should not be blamed. Disney should not be blamed. They will pay, which they should, but this was an incredibly unusual, freak accident. Sometimes, nobody is at fault.

How can you say, at this point, that Disney should not be blamed?

Because they cannot control mother nature, and had no reason to assume any child would be attacked and eaten by a gator on their property since it has never happened in the history of the park. And because there WERE no swimming signs. But since it did happen on their property, they should and will pay the family some damages. Held entirely to blame? No. They didn't have any foresight that this was an expected thing to happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gator signs posted near water near hotels in SC. Not having them in FL is negligent.

+ a million

And that's the bottom line.

I've wondered whether other Disney area hotels not on Disney properties have posted alligator warnings. PPs have mentioned seeing alligator warnings at Shades of Green resort on Disney property, but this resort is owned and managed by the US military. Is there no Florida state law? Does SC have a state law requiring signage?

Anonymous wrote:Look, ultimately, it was an accident. The parents should not be blamed. Disney should not be blamed. They will pay, which they should, but this was an incredibly unusual, freak accident. Sometimes, nobody is at fault.

How can you say, at this point, that Disney should not be blamed?

It has been reported that Disney will be putting up alligator warning signs and is working on the wording. Translation: lawyers are debating how to phrase it.

Look, ultimately, it was an accident. The parents should not be blamed. Disney should not be blamed. They will pay, which they should, but this was an incredibly unusual, freak accident. Sometimes, nobody is at fault.

Anonymous wrote:Gator signs posted near water near hotels in SC. Not having them in FL is negligent.

+ a million

And that's the bottom line.

Gator signs posted near water near hotels in SC. Not having them in FL is negligent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not the PP but maybe because it says "on the beach" at the bottom

And a couple exits down it says "Welcome to Hogwarts" at Universal. You get my drift?

Actually on Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday at 7PM the calendar lists "Campfire and Marshmallows on the beach."

Perhaps those arguing whether or not these are beaches, could let Disney know they are spreading misinformation.

It's apparently a huge deal.

Are we talking about the same place? Pretty sure resorts exaggerate locale. Orlando is filled with resorts and resort style dining. Rainforest Cafe isn't really a rainforest nor a cafe'?! Get out of town!

What exactly does your opinion on whether or not these classify as beaches have to do with the fact that a 2 year old boy is dead? The family was using the area as it is intended to be used. Whether it's a beach, a sandy play place.. whatever. They were doing what people do while there.

I disagree with you. Classifying it as a beach means s lot. It gives people a false sense of security thinking they should play in the water (because alligators don't live at the beach) and then Disney contradicts that very preface by warning people not to swim. again I don't think it's anyone's fault and with all the best signage in the world the same thing could have happened.

People have posted all over that every body of freshwater in FL has the potential to contain alligators. Beaches on the edge of rivers, ponds, and lakes in Disney absolutely are homes to alligators.

Are you under the mistaken impression that the word beach only applies to the ocean?

There are animals that are a lot more dangerous and that are responsible for a lot more human deaths than alligators. Your odds of being killed by a gator are 2.4 million to one. You more likely to be killed by a neighbors dog.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/15/health/disney-alligator-attack-may-have-been-the-perfect-storm-trnd/index.html

Oh, and growing up and seeing gators in the wild never terrified me. In fact, it was like seeing bears at Yellowstone. You know they are wild animals. You don't feed them. You don't antagonize them. You keep a respectful distance.

Right. What's next? You head down to the beach in Delaware or elsewhere, get into the water and are attackedy by a shark. Was someone supposed to warn you there may be sharks in the water? You take risks wherever you go.

Someone pointed out there was an attack at Disney in 1986. That was 30 years ago. That's a long time between attacks, meaning this kind of thing is a highly unlikely statistical fluke. That is too bad for the family that lost the child, but perhaps Disney did a cost-benefit analysis based on the statistical probability of a fatal human - gator interaction and figured the risk was very low.

I think it would be unreasonable within any property in Florida with water - public or private - to make it gator free. It is just not possible. The manmade lakes at Disney are connected to the natural lakes and waterways in the area, and the series of canals that are found across Florida are like commuter highways for gators that allow them access to virtually any body of water in the state.