Anonymous wrote:

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 it was a wild predatory animal in its natural habitat and Disney had no swimming signs!

Also, they get like what, 20 million visitors a year? That's what I saw in one article. The possibility of this wasn't even on their radar. They'll put up the signs now, but I'm sure it won't be enough for some people. They'll still feed the gators.

I do wonder if people would have had the same outcry about a snake bite killing the child. Would people honestly say I didn't think there were snakes at Disney?

I agree - MILLIONS of people have been there with no alligator incident. Who could have foreseen this?? Certainly not the parents. I guess Disney could've been more pro-active but I don't really blame them.

The cost to Disney of informing its guests that gators were in very close proximity to its beaches would have been negligible. The cost to Disney of enforcing its "no feeding gators/wildlife" rules would have been negligible. Even if Disney believed there was little risk of a gator ever attacking, the cost of it maybe-possibly-one-day happening (a child's life) is so incredibly high, compared to the cost of taking basic and effective preventative measures, it's really hard for me to defend Disney's choice to ignore the issue.

Yes they could have done that but do you think people would have completely followed the rules? I doubt it. Because nothing like this had ever happened before. But you are right - they should've done it anyway.

Anonymous wrote:

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 it was a wild predatory animal in its natural habitat and Disney had no swimming signs!

Also, they get like what, 20 million visitors a year? That's what I saw in one article. The possibility of this wasn't even on their radar. They'll put up the signs now, but I'm sure it won't be enough for some people. They'll still feed the gators.

I do wonder if people would have had the same outcry about a snake bite killing the child. Would people honestly say I didn't think there were snakes at Disney?

I agree - MILLIONS of people have been there with no alligator incident. Who could have foreseen this?? Certainly not the parents. I guess Disney could've been more pro-active but I don't really blame them.

The cost to Disney of informing its guests that gators were in very close proximity to its beaches would have been negligible. The cost to Disney of enforcing its "no feeding gators/wildlife" rules would have been negligible. Even if Disney believed there was little risk of a gator ever attacking, the cost of it maybe-possibly-one-day happening (a child's life) is so incredibly high, compared to the cost of taking basic and effective preventative measures, it's really hard for me to defend Disney's choice to ignore the issue.

It is illegal to feed gators in Florida. A misdemeanor with a $500 fine. This also applies to ducks, turtles, fish, etc.

Does Disney evict guests who break the law? That should include guests who feed alligators. Also, they should (and probably will) redesign the beach so that the sand doesn't lead down into the water.

They did not anticipate this. It's easy to say they should have -- hindsight is 20/20.

Anonymous wrote:

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 it was a wild predatory animal in its natural habitat and Disney had no swimming signs!

Also, they get like what, 20 million visitors a year? That's what I saw in one article. The possibility of this wasn't even on their radar. They'll put up the signs now, but I'm sure it won't be enough for some people. They'll still feed the gators.

I do wonder if people would have had the same outcry about a snake bite killing the child. Would people honestly say I didn't think there were snakes at Disney?

I agree - MILLIONS of people have been there with no alligator incident. Who could have foreseen this?? Certainly not the parents. I guess Disney could've been more pro-active but I don't really blame them.

The cost to Disney of informing its guests that gators were in very close proximity to its beaches would have been negligible. The cost to Disney of enforcing its "no feeding gators/wildlife" rules would have been negligible. Even if Disney believed there was little risk of a gator ever attacking, the cost of it maybe-possibly-one-day happening (a child's life) is so incredibly high, compared to the cost of taking basic and effective preventative measures, it's really hard for me to defend Disney's choice to ignore the issue.

+ 1,000

WTF, Disney? Characters have to throw up in their heads rather than risk traumatizing children by seeing the human cast member, but you can't warn families that the "beach" their kids are playing on has alligators in it?

It's been stated several times that they knew the gators were there and that they were desensitized to humans who were feeding them. They removed five alligators during the search for the toddler alone.

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 seems proven at this point that Disney knew there were alligators in that water. If that is the case, the "No Swimming" signs should have read something along the lines of "Do not go in the water. Alligators present. Swim/wade at your own risk." I great up on the East Coast and I've been to Florida several times so I know there are alligators there. But never in a million years would I have expected that alligators would be present in a man-made body of water on Disney's property. And I don't think swimming and wading are the same things either. So the signage should make it clear to stay completely away from the water.

I studied abroad in Australia in the 90s and there were crocodile warning signs all over the place. On one guided trip our tour guide had us swim through a channel in order to get to a waterfall. The channel had crocodile warning signs but the guide assured us they weren't actually in there because it was the dry season. I can assure you I was terrified the entire swim but I knew very clearly that I was swimming at my own risk.

The parents of this poor child should have had the benefit of a warning that alligators were present. I bet their son would be alive right now if that were the case.

Exactly. Another issue Disney will face, if this ever goes to court which I can't imagine that it will, is that the signs didn't just say "no swimming" - they said "steep drop off, deep water, no swimming" - by giving a reason for the "no swimming" being a steep drop off and deep water, it gives the impression that being present at the water's edge would not pose much if any danger. Disney would have had a better argument actually if it literally just said "no swimming" and didn't give reasons.

What I object to is the idea that Disney doesn't value safety. As someone who grew up in Florida and has gone there since it opened, I don't find that to be true at all. Just look at their ride warning signs, which are certainly over cautious.

Other than River Country and some swimming at the Fort Wilderness campground on the neighboring Bay Lake decades ago, I don't recall WDW pushing the lakes for swimming. It has been a watersports lake. I've taken Jet Skis out on it (this would have been the 80s) and other boats. This is routine in Florida -- even at the picture some have posted about the neighboring resorts, the "No swimming -- alligators" sign is nestled among the canoes and other watercraft.

The idea that any Florida resort can bottle up nature is ridiculous.

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 it was a wild predatory animal in its natural habitat and Disney had no swimming signs!

Also, they get like what, 20 million visitors a year? That's what I saw in one article. The possibility of this wasn't even on their radar. They'll put up the signs now, but I'm sure it won't be enough for some people. They'll still feed the gators.

I do wonder if people would have had the same outcry about a snake bite killing the child. Would people honestly say I didn't think there were snakes at Disney?

I agree - MILLIONS of people have been there with no alligator incident. Who could have foreseen this?? Certainly not the parents. I guess Disney could've been more pro-active but I don't really blame them.

The cost to Disney of informing its guests that gators were in very close proximity to its beaches would have been negligible. The cost to Disney of enforcing its "no feeding gators/wildlife" rules would have been negligible. Even if Disney believed there was little risk of a gator ever attacking, the cost of it maybe-possibly-one-day happening (a child's life) is so incredibly high, compared to the cost of taking basic and effective preventative measures, it's really hard for me to defend Disney's choice to ignore the issue.

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 seems proven at this point that Disney knew there were alligators in that water. If that is the case, the "No Swimming" signs should have read something along the lines of "Do not go in the water. Alligators present. Swim/wade at your own risk." I great up on the East Coast and I've been to Florida several times so I know there are alligators there. But never in a million years would I have expected that alligators would be present in a man-made body of water on Disney's property. And I don't think swimming and wading are the same things either. So the signage should make it clear to stay completely away from the water.

I studied abroad in Australia in the 90s and there were crocodile warning signs all over the place. On one guided trip our tour guide had us swim through a channel in order to get to a waterfall. The channel had crocodile warning signs but the guide assured us they weren't actually in there because it was the dry season. I can assure you I was terrified the entire swim but I knew very clearly that I was swimming at my own risk.

The parents of this poor child should have had the benefit of a warning that alligators were present. I bet their son would be alive right now if that were the case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, here's the story: Parents of boy, 2, dragged to his death by an alligator speak out

http://dailym.ai/1QaahXG

It's interesting that they don't blame Disney in their statement.

I imagine they are not even in the mindspace to engage in that thinking right now. They are probably consumed with grief for their son.

Or maybe they don't blame Disney.

Of course that's possible, but I don't know that we can read what their feelings are on a statement made about the death of their son. If they're thinking about it at all yet, that wasn't the time and place to mention it. We can't read too much into that is all I was saying.

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 it was a wild predatory animal in its natural habitat and Disney had no swimming signs!

Also, they get like what, 20 million visitors a year? That's what I saw in one article. The possibility of this wasn't even on their radar. They'll put up the signs now, but I'm sure it won't be enough for some people. They'll still feed the gators.

I do wonder if people would have had the same outcry about a snake bite killing the child. Would people honestly say I didn't think there were snakes at Disney?

I agree - MILLIONS of people have been there with no alligator incident. Who could have foreseen this?? Certainly not the parents. I guess Disney could've been more pro-active but I don't really blame them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

^^not a great lawyer

I'm sure you are, but sounds like your practice area is not torts or any kind of liability law. If this goes to court, I don't think even Disney would try to take the line of argument you suggest.

Anonymous wrote:

"In 1977, the alligator was reclassified from an endangered to a threatened species. This change in status allowed the alligator once again to be available for commercial use. During the 1980s the alligator came to be viewed as a renewable resource, and several alligator management programs were instituted by the State of Florida. These programs allowed for controlled hunting of the alligator by private individuals and the collection of eggs and hatchlings by licensed alligator farms.

"Alligator farming is now a thriving business, with an estimated 30+ alligator farms in the State of Florida. This multi-million dollar industry generates approximately 300,000 pounds of meat and over 15,000 skins a year. Alligator meat averages $5-$7 a pound wholesale, and while skin prices vary year to year, the average price is $25 per foot. Currently, it is estimated that the state of Florida is home to over 1,000,000 alligators, not counting those raised on commercial alligator farms."

I think this is outdated now and they have become an invasive species. They killed 5 of them at Disney? There are still a million left.

An invasive species is one that is not native to the habitat. Alligators are a natural inhabitant of Florida. We are the invasive species.

Of course Disney bears some responsibility.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, here's the story: Parents of boy, 2, dragged to his death by an alligator speak out

http://dailym.ai/1QaahXG

It's interesting that they don't blame Disney in their statement.

I imagine they are not even in the mindspace to engage in that thinking right now. They are probably consumed with grief for their son.

Or maybe they don't blame Disney.

+1.

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 it was a wild predatory animal in its natural habitat and Disney had no swimming signs!

Also, they get like what, 20 million visitors a year? That's what I saw in one article. The possibility of this wasn't even on their radar. They'll put up the signs now, but I'm sure it won't be enough for some people. They'll still feed the gators.

I do wonder if people would have had the same outcry about a snake bite killing the child. Would people honestly say I didn't think there were snakes at Disney?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, here's the story: Parents of boy, 2, dragged to his death by an alligator speak out

http://dailym.ai/1QaahXG

It's interesting that they don't blame Disney in their statement.

I imagine they are not even in the mindspace to engage in that thinking right now. They are probably consumed with grief for their son.

Or maybe they don't blame Disney.