USA Today interviewing a lawyer: 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.
The attorney is correct with regard to personal land owners. You and I don't need to warn about wild animals on our personal property.
Disney is different. Disney is a business inviting customers onto its property in order to conduct commerce. As such, Disney is held to a higher standard.
Disney had a legal obligation to inspect for hazards and either remove or warn about knowable hazards.
There are two ways Disney might not be culpable.
First way: Disney did not know about the hazard and it was not a knowable hazard.
Let's say that alligators are not native to Florida and some bozo released an alligator on Disney's vast property. In this case, Disney would not have known about the hazard.
Conversely, Disney could be held responsible if a Disney employee happened to see this bozo do this and then that employee did nothing about it. In this example, Disney would know about what would otherwise be an unknowable hazard.
Second way: Disney removed the hazard or warned about the hazard.
Let's say a Cast Member walked up to the parents and said, "Stay away from the water. There are alligators in there." If the parents then disregarded Disney's warning, then Disney might not be held responsible.
But it has to be a warning identifying the specific danger. Disney cannot simply post "Danger" signs everywhere and then claim they warned guests. The warning must identify the specific threat.
And in anticipation of the question, it's my understanding that, legally, "no swimming" is a warning about the threat of drowning, not a warning about alligators unless it explicitly states so on the sign.
There's a reason the new signage specifically warns about alligators and snakes.
