This is where I was driving to.. your statements failed to address the various tests that must be evaluated before such a determination of liability is made or is conclusive. Yet, you kept going down the duty of care and nothing else.. so they are liable -- failing to acknowledge or evaluate the other tests.
So by your evaluation, every Golf Course in the South is a liability nightmare waiting to be exploited and any in bear country are just disasters waiting to happen. How would any insurance company underwrite any property design like a Golf Course since it leaves things open to nature, its left 'un-monitored', provides no barriers for known-dangerous animals, and no preventing of customers from leaving the groomed areas.
Or how about every HOA and Developer in Florida that has water retention ponds and open spaces in their developments that are un-monitored, unrestricted, and just ripe to have some innocent person violated by wild animals such as snakes, coyotes, bears, and gators. By your listed standards, everyone one of these entities would be liable for any attacks period. Sounds like you should be retiring and getting your license for Florida so you can collect on this untapped market.
Or.. again are there more tests you are leaving out before laying judgement?
At least now you have softened to 'can be liability'. Sure, but it is with limits - limits you glossed over previously and only after highlighting how your universal judgements don't apply that you even start to acknowledge.
God help us.
It does, and has held true in court.
Like this cite...
http://www.leagle.com/decision/1986839487So2d352_1752/PALUMBO v. GAME & FRESH WATER FISH COM'N
"The law of Florida does not require the owner or possessor of land to anticipate the presence of or to guard an invitee or trespasser against harm from wild animals unless one of two conditions exists: the animal has been reduced to possession, or the animal is not indigenous to the locality but has been introduced onto the premises. Appellees had not reduced the alligator to possession before the attack, and since alligators are indigenous to Florida, appellees were not required to have the alligator under dominion and control."
And it can also be argued if the changes Disney has implemented in the area vs the natural state actually increases the risk, or if its a risk consistent with that kind of body of water everywhere (the premise where the city was not liable for risk of their ocean beach, because the risks were consistent of all ocean beaches -
http://archive.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/sc02-1568/02-1569ans.pdf )
Just because it's possible to control wild animals, that does not infer automatic negligence if one is found. Again, there is more to this.. and there are plenty of cases where the courts have found property owners not liable for the actions of wild animals.. even tho it happened on their property.
again that breach of that duty is open to interpretation. In one of the other gator/swimmer cases, the gator warning signs were present, but not in the immediate proximity of the area in question, and they were considered as existing. There is also the question of if its necessary to disclose that given the location.
On the premise of what.. that it's possible for shallow water to cause injuries period?
Can you cite any cases where strict liability has been applied to gator attacks? Or natural wildlife attacks in public spaces? Because plenty of gator attacks have been argued in court... and I can't find situations and precedent set for strict liability applying to wild animals not in captivity or introduced by the property owner.
