WDW Taking a Hit Over Gator and Massacre ...

[Matt_Black]

In my opinion "No Swimming" means that you aren't allowed to swim, not that you aren't allowed in the water at all.

Please. That's a bit like arguing you're not guilty of jaywalking because you were RUNNING across the street.

 

[ParentsOf4]

Please. That's a bit like arguing you're not guilty of jaywalking because you were RUNNING across the street.

I've been researching this in some depth. The Courts are pretty clear on this topic. "No swimming" is widely accepted to be a warning about the risk of drowning, not the risk of animal attacks.

If the poor child had drowned, Disney could have presented a strong defense that his parents had ignored warning signs about swimming.

There's a reason Disney immediately changed its signage. Legally, Disney knew that its previous signage was inadequate.

 

[Matt_Black]

I've been researching this in some depth. The Courts are pretty clear on this topic. "No swimming" is widely accepted to be a warning about the risk of drowning, not the risk of animal attacks.

If the poor child had drowned, Disney could have presented a strong defense that his parents had ignored warning signs about swimming.

There's a reason Disney immediately changed its signage. Legally, Disney knew that its previous signage was inadequate.

And that's fine. Again, in my opinion, letting your child near the water at night with no lifeguard on duty is remarkably poor judgment.

 

[PhotoDave219]

They weren't building a sandcastle. Why are you even talking about that? They were in the flipping water. And yes, before you mention it, ankle-deep water. It's possible to drown in water that deep.

Uh. I thought I saw that quoted in the report from FWC.

 

[Matt_Black]

Uh. I thought I saw that quoted in the report from FWC.

Well, whatever. A trip to the water was involved at one point. You shouldn't go near the water if you can't see what's in the water. (Most of my beach excursions involve the Jersey Shore, so that's sound policy in my experience.)

 

[ChrisRobin124]

Yeah, whatever. Who needs the facts in the case when passing judgement?

 

[Matt_Black]

Yeah, whatever. Who needs the facts in the case when passing judgement?

Did they go to the water during poor visibility, yes or no? That's the only relevant detail.

 

[baymenxpac]

Well, whatever. A trip to the water was involved at one point. You shouldn't go near the water if you can't see what's in the water. (Most of my beach excursions involve the Jersey Shore, so that's sound policy in my experience.)

ahhhh the shore...that explains a lot

 

[PhotoDave219]

Well, whatever. A trip to the water was involved at one point. You shouldn't go near the water if you can't see what's in the water. (Most of my beach excursions involve the Jersey Shore, so that's sound policy in my experience.)

Oh I completely agree that no swimming generally would mean don't go in the water… well to me anyways.

I also grew up with the murky waters of the Jersey shore to teach me that you have no idea what's in there… I remember at age 10 or 11 having a shark brush by me. Really tiny one but to a small kid, it was the size of a boat. Those are my experiences.

I have no idea what a person from middle America, the landlocked mid west of Nebraska. If I'm coming from there, I wouldn't expect an alligator. They're in full on tourist mode. If I hadn't lived there, I would reasonably think at Disney that there would be no problem being on that beach at dusk. I'd expect the no swimming signs to be for the lack of lifeguards, not the inherent natural dangers of amoebas and other wildlife.

This is something the family has carried around with them for the rest of their lives. The man is going to have enough guilt to wrestle with. I'm not going to add onto that.

 

[ChrisRobin124]

Did they go to the water during poor visibility, yes or no? That's the only relevant detail.

Maybe that is the only relevant detail to you. I will give you credit for this much - after lurking for years, you actually motivated me to join. I read for weeks people throwing judgments out about this poor family and that father. So I will not respond further after this. You are more than welcome to the last word. And I hope for your sake that you never have an experience like this where people sit in judgment of your "poor judgment".

 

[Matt_Black]

I have no idea what a person from middle America, the landlocked mid west of Nebraska. If I'm coming from there, I wouldn't expect an alligator. They're in full on tourist mode.

And I completely agree. But beaches can have things like sharp rocks, assorted debris, or other hazards.

 

[andysol]

I don't necessarily blame the parents, but I think many can agree that poor judgment was shown.

Building a sandcastle at Disney World with your toddler at a beach with plenty of light (not pitch black) on a beach they are extremely familiar with. Ya, terrible judgement. Go away dude.

 

[Matt_Black]

Building a sandcastle at Disney World with your toddler at a beach with plenty of light (not pitch black) on a beach they are extremely familiar with. Ya, terrible judgement. Go away dude.

It was evening, and how "extremely familiar" could a visiting family from Nebraska be with it?

 

[GoofGoof]

While I can understand your feelings that should also mean that you would not want to take the monorail to the MK which goes right through the GF and from which you can see the beach.

Not to mention that someone died in a monorail accident too.

I can understand why some people didn't want to stay at GF right after the accident but as time goes on that sentiment will fade. Not for the family or friends of the poor kid, but for the rest of us that only know of this event as a tragic news story and discussion topic.

 

[Matt Crocker]

It was evening, and how "extremely familiar" could a visiting family from Nebraska be with it?

Maybe that is the only relevant detail to you. I will give you credit for this much - after lurking for years, you actually motivated me to join. I read for weeks people throwing judgments out about this poor family and that father. So I will not respond further after this. You are more than welcome to the last word. And I hope for your sake that you never have an experience like this where people sit in judgment of your "poor judgment".

I've been lurking on this forum for years too... I've wanted to reply to lots of posts but for one reason or another never got round to joining.

As a new father and someone who is staying in Grand Floridian in a few months this story really hit a nerve.

If this terrible accident never happened would I have let my child play on the waters edge? I really can't answer that. Planning in advance - no, in the spur of the moment, probably.

Either way.... People blaming the parents who have experienced this horrific loss are in my humble opinion the lowest common denominator.

But - like you - they have made me so annoyed I've joined the site and start chatting!

 

[GoofGoof]

It was evening, and how "extremely familiar" could a visiting family from Nebraska be with it?

As far as the signs go they were clearly not as effective as necessary to prevent this. Disney has openly admitted this by agreeing to change the signs and block off the water. Sometimes you need to protect people from themselves. IMHO nobody should need a warning printed on a cup of coffee warning that it's hot, but here we are with cups with warnings. The fact that a decent number of people here felt that no "swimming signs" didn't necessarily mean don't enter the water is a good indication that the warning was not clear enough (assuming we make up a good sample - maybe not true since some of us could actually be considered crazy). If the intent was to keep people completely out of the water they needed clearer signs. You and I may agree that no swimming means stay the heck out of the water, but if enough others don't see it that way then it's not enough. The problem has been rectified and the new signs have been added.

 

[Matt_Black]

As far as the signs go they were clearly not as effective as necessary to prevent this. Disney has openly admitted this by agreeing to change the signs and block off the water. Sometimes you need to protect people from themselves. IMHO nobody should need a warning printed on a cup of coffee warning that it's hot, but here we are with cups with warnings. The fact that a decent number of people here felt that no "swimming signs" didn't necessarily mean don't enter the water is a good indication that the warning was not clear enough (assuming we make up a good sample - maybe not true since some of us could actually be considered crazy). If the intent was to keep people completely out of the water they needed clearer signs. You and I may agree that no swimming means stay the heck out of the water, but if enough others don't see it that way then it's not enough. The problem has been rectified and the new signs have been added.

Indeed. And, as I stated before, Disney is not entirely blameless either. Since this occurred as a result of their "Movies on the beach" thing, they really should have had CMs patrolling the length of the beach.

 

[andysol]

Indeed. And, as I stated before, Disney is not entirely blameless either.

Either? Who else is there to blame? I don't even know if I blame Disney. Freak accidents are allowed in the world. Blame doesn't need to be passed on every situation. I realize that's human nature- trying to pretend you're perfect and thinking every situation is preventable leading to your immortality- but for those of us with a broader scope of self- we realize that's simply not true.

Seriously- you're coming off as insensitive .

 

[21stamps]

You know, the more I think about it - the more I shake my head at what they did all those decades ago.

Nothing really went right with the Lagoon, when you look at the original intentions. They really did think that by flooding that swamp they would be able to create their own artificial paradise that would seamlessly connect to actual naturally occurring and existing eco-systems.

You are right - originally, they allowed swimming. Until they discovered the deadly brain-eating bacteria. They also intended it for fishing - they stocked it with fish, and at different times allowed fishing (though I don't know why this was scratched - anyone?). Then we can't forget the nearly mythical (but very real) wave machine, intended for surfing and such, which they had to shut down because apparently no one heard of beach erosion (or didn't realize how a fake beach would be especially susceptible to it).

So all of this just so the MK can now have a 14' deep moat around the front of it.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if long term planning is looking at somehow enclosing at least parts of it and making a real fake waterway, or something else which seems unthinkable (drain and pave?) but really, long term, is probably going to have to be done sooner or later.

I always get surprised when people think that the "brain eating bacteria" only exists at WDW. It is/can be found in fresh water- pretty much anywhere. It is not even close to a Disney exclusive.

I also don't think that "nothing has gone right with the lagoon" is close to accurate. I've always loved that area, regardless of if it was swimming as a child, on the beach as an adult, or participating in water sports during either phase of my life. Myself and my child will continue to do water sports or rent a boat in that water as well.

Bottom Line- Seven Seas Lagoon is not any more dangerous than any other body of water in Florida.

 

[mimitchi33]

Not to mention the movie the toddler was there to watch was VERY violent for someone his age (Zootopia)! Who lets their two year old watch that? It's too scary to watch for that age group...