Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Arguing with the die hard Floridians who don't see what's wrong since they are from there and alligators are everywhere is futile. They just don't get it and never will. Of course, Floridians are not known for being the sharpest knife in the U.S. regardless.

If only they could be as smart as you, spouting off inaccurate facts about the state you don't live in and then arguing they don't know,what they are talking about when they correct you.

No, these people are taking great pride in their own ignorance and claiming that it is the duty of everyone else in the world to protect them from it. I don't blame the parents for this, but I also do not believe that Disney is responsible for protecting everyone on their grounds who may choose to ignore a "no swimming" sign from naturally occurring fauna. There are such things as accidents. They happen, and sometimes no one is to blame.

Again, not a naturally occuring fauna. A fauna occuring because of Disney.

An inviting beach occuring because of Disney. Lounge chairs, sand pails, and other beach stuff put there by Disney. Outdoor events taking place on said beach occuring by Disney.

The entire place - Disneyworld - is a cement jungle. There are barriers everywhere to keep people out. Warning signs everywhere, except for this.

Nope. You are clueless.

My childhood home was near a man made lake, and we all knew that there could be alligators in there. Every first grader in Florida knows that where there is fresh water, there could be an alligator.

As a native Floridian, one would think you might know that many who visit Disney every year are what's called "tourists." That means, in case you don't know, that they come from someplace else! Someplace, for example, that has no alligators. Or that has crocodiles and so they would expect a freshwater lake or even a man made lagoon to have no huge reptiles at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Arguing with the die hard Floridians who don't see what's wrong since they are from there and alligators are everywhere is futile. They just don't get it and never will. Of course, Floridians are not known for being the sharpest knife in the U.S. regardless.

If only they could be as smart as you, spouting off inaccurate facts about the state you don't live in and then arguing they don't know,what they are talking about when they correct you.

Yes, never been there or anywhere outside of my own state/region (sarcastic - which means " marked by or given to using irony in order to mock or convey contempt" -though I may have to define contempt for you).

I hope you never travel outside of the United states bible because the rest of the world cares a lot less about smacking warning labels on everything that poses even a 1 in a billion risk. Next time you go for a walk would you like there top be a sign on your door warning you that you might get hot by a car?

When you get in a can should there be a warning sign that you might get abducted?

When you walk in the woods should every tree at the perimeter earn you of bears?

At bars should every bartender tell you the dangers of drinking?

Every restaurant to warn you that you might choke?

Should every movie theater put a sign up warning you that they don't have metal detectors so you might get shot.

Seriously this was a freak accident and life is unpredictable. It is reasonable to assume that Disney was using their 30 year track record at that lagoon to assume that it was a negligible risk that this could happen.

This isn't just Floridians being cavalier. It's life, and all of you apparently wanting to have your cake and eat it to (ie live your life but in a perfectly safe bubble).

This was a horrific accident and what the family is going through is unimaginable. The entire american public circling their story like sharks trying to parcel out blame between the park and themselves is not helping. Back the eff off.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Arguing with the die hard Floridians who don't see what's wrong since they are from there and alligators are everywhere is futile. They just don't get it and never will. Of course, Floridians are not known for being the sharpest knife in the U.S. regardless.

If only they could be as smart as you, spouting off inaccurate facts about the state you don't live in and then arguing they don't know,what they are talking about when they correct you.

No, these people are taking great pride in their own ignorance and claiming that it is the duty of everyone else in the world to protect them from it. I don't blame the parents for this, but I also do not believe that Disney is responsible for protecting everyone on their grounds who may choose to ignore a "no swimming" sign from naturally occurring fauna. There are such things as accidents. They happen, and sometimes no one is to blame.

Again, not a naturally occuring fauna. A fauna occuring because of Disney.

An inviting beach occuring because of Disney. Lounge chairs, sand pails, and other beach stuff put there by Disney. Outdoor events taking place on said beach occuring by Disney.

The entire place - Disneyworld - is a cement jungle. There are barriers everywhere to keep people out. Warning signs everywhere, except for this.

Nope. You are clueless.

My childhood home was near a man made lake, and we all knew that there could be alligators in there. Every first grader in Florida knows that where there is fresh water, there could be an alligator.

Anonymous wrote:Do we need to warn you on our beaches that there could be sharks in the water too? Or venomous jelly fish? Where does it stop? Or do all those out of staters know that the beach is really the edge of a wilderness that they enter at their own risk?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re: the legal principal of owning or introducing a wild animal to your property --

While Disney did not own the alligator, I think it could be reasonably argued that creating a man made lake that connects to natural water ways and mimics the habitat of alligators, then essentially permitting guests to feed these animals could amount to an introduction of these animals to Disney property.

Disney did not *have* to create a beach environment on its property. It could have paved the whole thing.

Now maybe a giant slab of concrete would not have been as attractive outside its resort and a business decision was made to create a lake. But at that point, wildlife was introduced to the property.

I'm not sure that Disney could have paved the whole thing. It's a swamp. You can't just drain a swamp, the water has to go somewhere. I'm guessing that the needed a body of water contain what was previously in the swamp, but the water that was there and the alligators that were there.

I'll also say that this feeding the alligators problem is something that seems to be linked to the villas over the water at the Polynesian, which opened in 2015. That problem may or may not have made the alligators more bold, but it didn't introduce the animals to Disney. Alligators have been at Disney for many years, probably since it was opened.

Anonymous wrote:Re: the legal principal of owning or introducing a wild animal to your property --

While Disney did not own the alligator, I think it could be reasonably argued that creating a man made lake that connects to natural water ways and mimics the habitat of alligators, then essentially permitting guests to feed these animals could amount to an introduction of these animals to Disney property.

Disney did not *have* to create a beach environment on its property. It could have paved the whole thing.

Now maybe a giant slab of concrete would not have been as attractive outside its resort and a business decision was made to create a lake. But at that point, wildlife was introduced to the property.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting article on Disney's potential liability: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/disneys-liability-prior-knowledge-questioned/ar-AAhiiN2?li=BBnbfcL

Pretty much no points made in the article that haven't been made here, but I didn't realize that Disney is known for defending cases against them as opposed to settling.

Yeah, well, they are going to have to settle this one for a huge amount. They would be toast in front of a jury.

In front of a Florida jury?

David Shiner, an attorney and managing partner Shiner Law Group in the Miami area, says the state’s law doesn’t require an owner of a land to anticipate the presence of harm from wild animals unless the owner either owns the wild animal or introduced it. “They didn’t own the alligator,” he said. “But if they know people are going into these areas, Disney has a duty to warn them if they knew of the presence of alligators.”

The issue of[b] the presence of “indigenous animals” distinguishes Disney’s case from the Cincinnati Zoo, where a 3-year-old boy fell into a gorilla exhibit. A 450-pound gorilla dragged the boy through a shallow moat before it was shot and killed. The boy survived with minor physical injuries.

The zoo owned the gorilla, and “there was a miscalculation on how to protect animals and customers from each other,” Branson says. “And if you go to a zoo, parents are aware of dangers.”

That Disney’s resorts are populated by out-of-staters who are unfamiliar with alligators should also have been considered in warnings and signage[u], Shiner says. “In Florida, we know not to jump in,” he says.

So, this is exactly an unforeseeable accident.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Arguing with the die hard Floridians who don't see what's wrong since they are from there and alligators are everywhere is futile. They just don't get it and never will. Of course, Floridians are not known for being the sharpest knife in the U.S. regardless.

If only they could be as smart as you, spouting off inaccurate facts about the state you don't live in and then arguing they don't know,what they are talking about when they correct you.

No, these people are taking great pride in their own ignorance and claiming that it is the duty of everyone else in the world to protect them from it. I don't blame the parents for this, but I also do not believe that Disney is responsible for protecting everyone on their grounds who may choose to ignore a "no swimming" sign from naturally occurring fauna. There are such things as accidents. They happen, and sometimes no one is to blame.

Again, not a naturally occuring fauna. A fauna occuring because of Disney.

An inviting beach occuring because of Disney. Lounge chairs, sand pails, and other beach stuff put there by Disney. Outdoor events taking place on said beach occuring by Disney.

The entire place - Disneyworld - is a cement jungle. There are barriers everywhere to keep people out. Warning signs everywhere, except for this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I would like to know is how feeding the gators, which is clearly illegal and I fully don't condone, contributed to this particular attack. It seems to me the gator acted in its natural element--attacking small prey, at night, in shallow water. I could see if the gator approached humans on the sandy beach or in the shallows at daytime, but this alligator attack appears to be typical gator behavior. Could someone please help me understand this? If not fed, would the gators typically move on from the bay completely?

Feeding alligators or any wild animal makes them unafraid of humans. Instead of moving away from a crowded beach, the alligator moved towards it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I would like to know is how feeding the gators, which is clearly illegal and I fully don't condone, contributed to this particular attack. It seems to me the gator acted in its natural element--attacking small prey, at night, in shallow water. I could see if the gator approached humans on the sandy beach or in the shallows at daytime, but this alligator attack appears to be typical gator behavior. Could someone please help me understand this? If not fed, would the gators typically move on from the bay completely?

Feeding alligators or any wild animal makes them unafraid of humans. Instead of moving away from a crowded beach, the alligator moved towards it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting article on Disney's potential liability: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/disneys-liability-prior-knowledge-questioned/ar-AAhiiN2?li=BBnbfcL

Pretty much no points made in the article that haven't been made here, but I didn't realize that Disney is known for defending cases against them as opposed to settling.

Yeah, well, they are going to have to settle this one for a huge amount. They would be toast in front of a jury.

In front of a Florida jury?

David Shiner, an attorney and managing partner Shiner Law Group in the Miami area, says the state’s law doesn’t require an owner of a land to anticipate the presence of harm from wild animals unless the owner either owns the wild animal or introduced it. “They didn’t own the alligator,” he said. “But if they know people are going into these areas, Disney has a duty to warn them if they knew of the presence of alligators.”

The issue of the presence of “indigenous animals” distinguishes Disney’s case from the Cincinnati Zoo, where a 3-year-old boy fell into a gorilla exhibit. A 450-pound gorilla dragged the boy through a shallow moat before it was shot and killed. The boy survived with minor physical injuries.

The zoo owned the gorilla, and “there was a miscalculation on how to protect animals and customers from each other,” Branson says. “And if you go to a zoo, parents are aware of dangers.”

That Disney’s resorts are populated by out-of-staters who are unfamiliar with alligators should also have been considered in warnings and signage, Shiner says. “In Florida, we know not to jump in,” he says.

So, this is exactly an unforeseeable accident.