From the OS: Gator drags child into Seven Seas Lagoon

[GoofGoof]

If a large bird swoops down and snatches a baby... Or injures a guest in trying to snatch something... Was Disney obligated to let guests know there are large birds of prey in the region and encounters MIGHT happen?

What about mosquitos and the diseases they carry... Is that a sign too?

Or how about the snake that comes out of the bushes... Where is the snake sign???

This argument is not black and white, and there are conditionals and degrees of interpretation that a judge would have to evaluate. There is a lot of presedence tho for no liability for native wildlife that can be expected to be present.

Don't forget the brain eating amoebas. Ever since I heard about them I haven't set foot in a lake in FL.

 

[GoofGoof]

I guess we will never know if a "Beware of Alligators" sign would have kept the parents from allowing their child close to the water. Will/Should Disney post such a sign in the future?

Yes. They most definitely will have some form of warning going forward. If they didn't, then it would be negligence.

 

[HouseHacker97]

If a large bird swoops down and snatches a baby... Or injures a guest in trying to snatch something... Was Disney obligated to let guests know there are large birds of prey in the region and encounters MIGHT happen?

What about mosquitos and the diseases they carry... Is that a sign too?

Or how about the snake that comes out of the bushes... Where is the snake sign???

This argument is not black and white, and there are conditionals and degrees of interpretation that a judge would have to evaluate. There is a lot of presedence tho for no liability for native wildlife that can be expected to be present.

Exactly. Anything can happen. an angry foreign nation could also shoot a missile at Disney. Should disney warn guests about that? Florida heat reaches higher than 100 degrees and I'm actually not sure if there is any signage about the dangers of heat stroke, but people pass out too. Disney puts a lot of signs to warn guests but they often ignore them anyway. No one expected this to happen. Disney removes gators from that lake all the time. I don't think anyone is at fault really.

 

[The Mom]

I guess we will never know if a "Beware of Alligators" sign would have kept the parents from allowing their child close to the water. Will/Should Disney post such a sign in the future?

I think it would have made most parents think twice about it!

 

[Matt_Black]

Yes but please keep in mind:

1. The area in question. This is a groomed, well-maintained, artificial beach that Disney invites its paying customers to use that is located on a body of water wholly owned and controlled by Disney.

Incorrect. The actual water is technically owned by the State of Florida.

 

[HouseHacker97]

Don't forget the brain eating amoebas. Ever since I heard about them I haven't set foot in a lake in FL.

Yeah that too. Realistically, even if there were a sign that warns guests of nuclear waste, they will probably still enter the water claiming that they thought it was a hoax. In fact, I don't think signs really deter people from doing anything if they have their minds set on it. Next year an amoeba will harm a guest "because there wasn't a sign". Should there be a sign for everything? where do they draw the line? something will always cross it and Disney will always be criticized for it, and IMO they shouldn't be

 

[The Mom]

I would say that's very subjective.. Whenever I've encountered a no swimming sign I've always taken it as do not go in the water...

You're absolutely correct - it is subjective. Which is why I'm not blaming the parents for allowing their child to wade in the water. If the sign had said "No swimming or wading." or even "Danger - do not enter water! (which would mean , to me, do not even stick your toe in) I would not touch the water. There are signs in my local park saying exactly that - "Do Not Allow Your Children to Swim or Play in This Water!"

 

[flynnibus]

I take it that it means I can't swim, ie, get my whole body in the water and move my arms and legs while propelling myself forward - or backward, depending on the stroke. As I stated, it depends upon what you think "swim" means.

Yes but please keep in mind:

1. The area in question. This is a groomed, well-maintained, artificial beach that Disney invites its paying customers to use that is located on a body of water wholly owned and controlled by Disney.
2. Many bodies of water throughout the World have "No swimming" signs. Such warning signs offer legal protection from cases of drowning. However, "No swimming" does not mean "Alligator warning".
3. Regardless, the child was not swimming.
4. Disney advertises WDW throughout the planet. It may be obvious to Floridians that bodies of water have alligators but most Disney Guests come from areas where alligators do not exist. These Guests cannot be expected to know the proximity of alligators and, even if they did, they have reasonable expectations that they will be protected from them in a beach area maintained by Disney.

The doctrine of ferae naturae (meaning Disney is not responsible for the behavior of wild animals) does not protect Disney under these circumstances. Disney created an artificial environment (the white sands beach and lake are both made-made) and knowingly put customers in close proximity of dangerous animals without providing protection or warning.

As the CNN article you linked to ended with:

Even with adequate signage and ferae naturae doctrine, a resort could still be liable in spite of all these protections, if it's flat-out negligent.

Resort liability in Florida for an alligator attack will depend on the specific facts -- not only the facts of the tragedy itself, but what the resort did and knew in advance about the alligators, and the likelihood of the harm.​

While the beach is an artificial area, one can not discount that it also is not an enclosed area, but in fact open to the surrounding native areas.

Your front lawn maybe on your property and artificial , but you wouldn't be held responsible for keeping all wildlife out from the adjacent lot.

 

[DuckTalesWooHoo1987]

I tried to make it through this thread before commenting, but couldn't get any further. The continued defense by people of a multi-billion dollar company and demonization of a family that simply dared to be human started to get to me.



Thankfully, your opinion doesn't matter. Disney is legally liable for this incident, no matter what the proximate cause actually is. Here's why:

There are signs. How many? How far apart are they? How far from the water are these signs? Is there signage anywhere else besides on the beach? How close was the nearest sign to this child and his father. It was late, so how well illuminated was the sign? Is there any other signage indicated no swimming allowed? Is there a specific reason for "no swimming"? Why no barricades to prevent anyone from entering the water? Does "no swimming" mean "do not enter the water"? Is there any signage to indicate danger from wildlife? Does Disney have staff to enforce the policies? How is it enforced? How often? Does staff verbally communicate with guests that there is no swimming, and do they clarify that it also means "do not enter the water"? Are they only in English? Was there any recognizably "universal" imagery used on the sign? How does Disney communicate the policies to non-English-speaking guests or guests who cannot read? What does Disney due to control wildlife on its property? What precautions does Disney take during large events on its beaches or in natural settings to prevent the encroachment of wildlife? Has wildlife entered these public spaces before? What is the response to these incidents? What is the response time?

That's why you're wrong and why Disney is liable.

Courts have consistently ruled that property owners are liable for injuries sustained on their property. Sticking a sign in the ground is worthless, and to be quite honest, the laziest way to protect guests. Signage puts the guests' safety in their own hands. But Disney is the property owner, it is THEIR (Disney's) responsibility to keep the guest safe.



What does that even mean? They aren't an aquatic species. They've always been able to "get on land".

It means that since they've had a case of an aggressive gator I wonder if they will continue to take the kids out there anymore on the Pirate Adventure. If you can find a private company that can stop alligators from acting the way they've acted since their existence then let me know. The kid didn't belong in the water and neither does anyone else. The fact that we live in a world where we have to tell people that coffee is hot is really depressing.

 

[donaldtoo]

This is my first post in this thread. Although I have been following it since last night, I just could not bring myself to post until now.

This is beyond a nightmare for this family, and in such a public way. There really are no words.
Deepest sympathies and prayers to them.

Although I have been following this thread since last night, I haven't been able to even come close to keeping up, so this has already probably been mentioned many times.
It seems that WDW could do a great service by having a standard of giving out a flyer or pamphlet regarding central Florida wildlife to all Guests upon checkin at their resorts. I would think Disney marketing could come up with something that didn't scare guests, but, also got the point across. Maybe something even involving the characters. Again, something non-threatening and maybe with a little levity in it, but, also something that gets the point across.

When I was a Disney Store CM, we had a wall poster backstage about safety featuring Donald Duck. At the top it had a picture of Donald (I believe slipping on something) and the words "No quackups please!"
Mildly humorous, but got the point across about the potential hazards of ladders, wet floors from mopping, unprocessed boxes of product shipment left out, etc.
just one small thought.

 

[SteamboatJoe]

A tragic nightmare of an event. I feel absolutely terrible not only for the family but for everyone involved both on the Disney and emergency response ends. I don't have any kids myself but I do have 2 nieces, a 2 year old and a 4 year and I cannot even fathom something this awful happening.

To me, it seems like a complete freak accident. One of those random acts that terrifies us as humans because it reveals that, no matter how hard we try, there are things we simply cannot control, predict, or completely prevent.

I believe this is the first serious injury/attack involving an alligator in WDW's history isn't it? 45 years is a pretty good track record. Obviously that doesn't diminish the tragedy in any way but in a court of law (which I don't think it will get to), I do think it is something that would be in Disney's favor

I am a northerner born and raised but when I'm anywhere down south, when I see a No Swimming sign near a body of water that isn't a swimming pool or clear fountain, I pretty much read that sign to mean "don't even get too close to the shore" as I know very well what could possibly be lurking below but I don't think everyone reads such signs the same way. In the north and midwest, No Swimming typically doesn't preclude getting your feet a little wet.

In regards to the signs, it is possible that Disney was hoping the No Swimming signs would be enough of a deterrent and that people would figure the rest out (Florida+Water=Potential Alligators). I mean seeing a sign stating how dangerous the adjacent water and woodlands may be does sort of hamper the "happiest place on earth vibe". That is not an excuse for Disney but I bet that is one of the reasons that they did not have signs which were more specific about the dangers.

I freely admit that I probably would've never stopped to think that WDW could have alligators in its waterways. I mean it makes perfect sense when you hear it but the Disney bubble is powerful. I completely understand how the family could've had the mindset they had.

If Disney doesn't permanently close the beaches in some manner, I at least expect more signage on WDW property near bodies of water and that said signs will be forced to be a lot more specific in regards to the hazards.

 

[DuckTalesWooHoo1987]

While the beach is an artificial area, one can not discount that it also is not an enclosed area, but in fact open to the surrounding native areas.

Your front lawn maybe on your property and artificial , but you wouldn't be held responsible for keeping all wildlife out from the adjacent lot.

The beach was built in gator country. People have to know that. I flat out will not let my kids get in the water at 7 Seas or BLT because of the fact that I know that there are gators in there. That's how I've always been. I don't feel like the whole "I just never thought it would happen to me" thing is a legal defense. I'm not saying these are "bad parents". I'm just saying that Disney is not liable for this.

 

[Daveeeeed]

Guys, this was a terrible tragedy, and know one is truly to blame. A warning for alligators could've been there especially when gators were known to be in and around that body of water. I don't think it is truly the parent's or Disney's fault, but I do think that having an Alligator sign may have saved that baby's life. We can only move forward now, and I'm sure Disney if they could would reverse time and put up measures of safety, but all we can do is pray and hope peace for the family. Honestly I cannot even imagine the difficulty, stress, and devastation they are feeling. Let's just please stop this debate about who's fault it is, as it is truly know one's. Signs could have been put up especially that it was an inviting beach, but realistically the parents may of just let the child go close to the water and not in the water, which still probably would've resulted in the same thing. Again I don't think anyone is truly at fault. Yes I wish the parents didn't let them go into the water, yes if they didn't know about the gators being there, a sign could have saved the child's life, but it is over, the kid is probably in a better place now. I am almost certain Disney and the family will settle out of court, but no amount of money can repay for their son's life. Please have them in your prayers tonight!

 

[5thGenTexan]

If a large bird swoops down and snatches a baby... Or injures a guest in trying to snatch something... Was Disney obligated to let guests know there are large birds of prey in the region and encounters MIGHT happen?

.

On Monday June 6, I was walking through Fantasyland in Disneyland when a duck flew straight at my face. I had to get pretty low to keep from being hit.

 

[BAChicagoGal]

It takes a tragedy to bring about new measures of security. Some will say "too little too late", or "it's about time". I am planning a trip to WDW in just 75 days. I am already expecting way tighter security before entering any of the four parks. I wonder just how many times, this incident, involving the little boy, will cross my mind as I visit the Magic Kingdom, and see the Seven Seas Lagoon? One can only imagine the pain this family is going through. Hopefully, people will be kind, and sensitive to their situation/loss.

 

[Matt_Black]

You're absolutely correct - it is subjective. Which is why I'm not blaming the parents for allowing their child to wade in the water. If the sign had said "No swimming or wading." or even "Danger - do not enter water! (which would mean , to me, do not even stick your toe in) I would not touch the water. There are signs in my local park saying exactly that - "Do Not Allow Your Children to Swim or Play in This Water!"

It's quite possible that the sign said, "No Swimming" and not much else due to language issues. WDW has guests from all over the world. Now, it's unfeasible to put all that in English and then again for every major language. "No Swimming" is easily translated. The more you add to that, the more complicated things are going to be.

 

[Daveeeeed]

It's quite possible that the sign said, "No Swimming" and not much else due to language issues. WDW has guests from all over the world. Now, it's unfeasible to put all that in English and then again for every major language. "No Swimming" is easily translated. The more you add to that, the more complicated things are going to be.

Good point, but they easily could've put underneath for fear of alligators or something. Can't go back now, a mistake, a tragedy, and move forward. Please have them in all of your prayers tonight.

 

[jaklgreen]

I take it that it means I can't swim, ie, get my whole body in the water and move my arms and legs while propelling myself forward - or backward, depending on the stroke. As I stated, it depends upon what you think "swim" means.

So "no swimming" to you means that you can go into the water but not make swimming movements? So standing is OK? How deep can you go before it is considered swimming? Can you go up to your knees, ankles, waist, chest high? Not trying to be rude, just honestly curious as to those who think going into the water when no swimming is posted, why is it not the same as swimming? Is it how deep you go in or actually swimming. Can you float?

 

[Shane7694]

So "no swimming" to you means that you can go into the water but not make swimming movements? So standing is OK? How deep can you go before it is considered swimming? Can you go up to your knees, ankles, waist, chest high? Not trying to be rude, just honestly curious as to those who think going into the water when no swimming is posted, why is it not the same as swimming? Is it how deep you go in or actually swimming. Can you float?

Can you swim in 2 inch high water??

 

[Shane7694]

It's quite possible that the sign said, "No Swimming" and not much else due to language issues. WDW has guests from all over the world. Now, it's unfeasible to put all that in English and then again for every major language. "No Swimming" is easily translated. The more you add to that, the more complicated things are going to be.

Really all that's needed is pictures on the sign..