NO lawsuit in death of boy at GF

[MagicHappens1971]

Just like the NHL (and MLB for that matter now doing the same) the Disney Company allowed conditions to exist where a guest was at risk of being harmed, knew about it for years, and wouldn't spend the money to (1) Hunt and kill these things or (2) Put up the barriers that they are now doing. Why? Costs too damn much.

I love WDW and will be there in 4 mos for my probably 40th trip. Great place. But it's not Mother Theresa. It's a business. And their business decisions - to put money over safety - cost this family a child.

Disney NEVER puts money over safety. Disney's first priority is and has always been YOUR safety! Why didn't they install barriers in the past? Because there was no need for them then, and there is no need for them now. WDW has been open for 45 years, this has been the first water related death. There was an incident in the 80s but to my knowledge no one died. The barriers were put up because of the society we live in, had this had happened 20-30 years ago? No barriers would've went up, also, they can't hunt and kill the gators, that's their ecosystem and their home. WDW has an agreement with the animal control departments.

 

[The Mom]

Folks, please play nicely. Thank you.

 

[Figment2005]

For those of you wondering. The fences are going to remain up on the beaches, but they are also in the middle of expanding the rocks on the shoreline completely removing the easy water access.

 

[Buried20KLeague]

Good luck with that Ratatouille. You sound like the type of person that stages car accidents to shakedown innocent victims.

What happened to personal responsibility? There are signs up saying no swimming, ie don't go in the water. Aside from signs, it's Florida, reasonable people would think at least there is a possibility of gators being around. The kid went in the water and something bad happened. I don't know the facts exactly what happened and I'm not blaming the family, I have kids and it seems plausible the kid very momentarily got in a bad position before the parents could stop it. Accidents happen. Kids run onto the street out of no where, they get hit, the driver and/or the municipality is not held liable without some gross negligence being present.

From what I read it seems like the family would have a tough time winning the case. Signs were up, maybe they could have been more explicit but unless there is some gross negligence how could Disney be held liable for the actions of a wild animal? I find it hard to believe if I am at a backyard picnic with friends and a bear attacks out of no where that the homeowner is responsible for the bear.

I fully agree with the previous posters that Disney has contributed to the fund in some form. Seems like the right thing to do although I doubt they would acknowledge any wrong doing on their part. A reasonable settlement has to be better value than a court and public opinion battle.

I can't find the stat right now but doesn't the US have 70% or some huge percent of the total number of lawyers worldwide? It that doesn't suggest a ambulance chasing, sue happy population I don't know what does.

You seem to permanently live in the Magic Kingdom.

In reality, if something like this happens and there's even ANY sort of gray area with a company with pockets as deep as Disney, they're going to bring you a check to get a signature on a release of liability before the ink on the check has dried.

That's the way it works. That's what happened here. Absolutely and without question.

@ParentsOf4 , we always see eye to eye, and I'm sorry for your loss. But you're a numbers and money guy. And with all due respect, that doc's pockets aren't like Disney's. He wouldn't be in a position to have a team of lawyers offer up a settlement instantly and proactively. Disney likely has a team of lawyers solely for that purpose.

They got a settlement. As they should have. I never assumed anything else would be the case. And that doesn't make them bad people. Rather, I believe it makes them GOOD people for working with Disney to find something that worked for everyone rather than let it play out in public... Which is a point Disney rarely gets to because they almost always settle before it gets to that point.

Disney knows what they're doing in this area. They're well-seasoned at it.

 

[rael ramone]

When I was done with them I would have OWNED the Grand Floridian

Pursuing a lawsuit in this instance is quite appropriate (though certainly not mandatory - the family was in their right to do what they thought was the best decision for them - they have no obligation to 'punish' $DIS).

A DOW 30 entertainment conglomerate that put 'Preserving The Magic' above clearly alerting guests about a danger that they knew was serious enough to have a program for removing the creatures, as well as allowing guests to feed them, altering their natural behavior to one that increased the danger to guests, instead of finding other ways to Preserve The Magic, like say, maintenance and cleanliness that costs money that they'd rather not spend. And the sign posted backstage about lying to guests about the Rivers of America gators kinda adds fuel to it - kinda like they haven't truly learned their lesson.

Grounds exist to pursue a suit - legal, ethical, and moral.

I said I thought that the non suit was the best case scenario for $DIS. I'm not so sure now. A lawsuit, which had the potential of cleansing the company of some executives that should be relieved of the burden of employment, could have been good long term for the company as a business...

 

[Nubs70]

Of course they did, as they should. Although "paying them off" indicates that the parents were going to sue but were convinced not to by a payment. It might be that they never intended to sue and that Disney felt it was the right thing to try to compensate them for their loss.

Most likely WDW made family "whole" by a payment tied to a non disclosure agreement.

The family is following good legal advice to keep out of court as monetary damages for toddlers is very low as they have no income history or potential.

 

[21stamps]

I'm just completely flabbergasted by these comments.
Am I seriously the only one who thinks that putting a price tag on a child's life is absolutely disgusting?!?

IF my child dies as a result of negligence on your part- I will NOT accept a sum of money and go away quietly. I WILL go to every news media outlet and tell them that you tried to bribe me to go away quietly. I WILL sue the sh** out of you - to make others aware, to punish you, to bring justice for my child. I have no wish to gain money to "never work again" or "own the Grand Floridian".

IF my child dies as a result of a complete accident or freak nature occurrence while on your property- I will NOT sue or blame you.

Since we're speculating on what "Disney has done financially" Maybe (most definitely) they refunded the cost of the vacay. Maybe they paid for transport of the boy's body home. Maybe they covered the funeral expenses. Maybe they are paying for the ongoing therapy that the mother, father, and sibling will most likely need for quite some time. Maybe they offered compensation if the father has to take an extended leave of absence from work that maybe isn't covered. Maybe they will be donating to the foundation (which is not a bribe).

To ASSUME that parents would accept a huge sum of money and sign a non disclosure to "go away quietly" is a horrendous, scary, and sickening mindset.

 

[Phil12]

Civil personal injury law in Florida abides by and monetary awards are contingent upon comparative negligence. Hence Disney's liability in this matter was minimal.

 

[wdwfan22]

I'm just completely flabbergasted by these comments.
Am I seriously the only one who thinks that putting a price tag on a child's life is absolutely disgusting?!?

IF my child dies as a result of negligence on your part- I will NOT accept a sum of money and go away quietly. I WILL go to every news media outlet and tell them that you tried to bribe me to go away quietly. I WILL sue the sh** out of you - to make others aware, to punish you, to bring justice for my child. I have no wish to gain money to "never work again" or "own the Grand Floridian".

IF my child dies as a result of a complete accident or freak nature occurrence while on your property- I will NOT sue or blame you.

Since we're speculating on what "Disney has done financially" Maybe (most definitely) they refunded the cost of the vacay. Maybe they paid for transport of the boy's body home. Maybe they covered the funeral expenses. Maybe they are paying for the ongoing therapy that the mother, father, and sibling will most likely need for quite some time. Maybe they offered compensation if the father has to take an extended leave of absence from work that maybe isn't covered. Maybe they will be donating to the foundation (which is not a bribe).

To ASSUME that parents would accept a huge sum of money and sign a non disclosure to "go away quietly" is a horrendous, scary, and sickening mindset.

Do you really think that Disney would offer any type of compensation without a non disclosure agreement being signed? I don't and most here probably don't either.

 

[21stamps]

Do you really think that Disney would offer any type of compensation without a non disclosure agreement being signed? I don't and most here probably don't either.

Not in the way people are saying it. Not to be "made whole" by a dollar amount. Not accepted as a bribe. If, which I doubt, the family truly blamed Disney, then absolutely no I don't they would have signed away a lawsuit for a sum.

 

[jrhwdw]

Stop assuming the worst in everyone.

I don't normally disclose personal details but feel it's appropriate considering the way this thread is going.

My father died because a doctor screwed up his care. We decided not to sue because he admitted his mistake and seemed genuinely sorry for it. He did not intend for it to happen so we just let it go.

Sometimes mistakes happen and, sometimes, "I'm sorry" is enough for closure.

Different people grieve differently. There is no "right" or "wrong" way to grieve.

Whatever Disney did, it was enough for the Graves.

In the wake of their tremendous loss, the Graves family may have simply wanted closure. They may have simply wanted to move on.

SO SORRY! This is coming from someone who had his father in the same position! He didn't die but he was right at death's door! He was on 100% Oxygen at the height of the screwup if that tells you anything! However, the same doctor who screwed up also got him through it. We were so focused on getting him better and home, which took months because of other things, not just the screwup, We didn't feel the drive to sue.
Granted its not the screwup the Graves had but maybe it depends where you are in life that helps you decide whether to sue or not?

 

[Nubs70]

I'm just completely flabbergasted by these comments.
Am I seriously the only one who thinks that putting a price tag on a child's life is absolutely disgusting?!?

Disgusting as this may be, this is what is done in court and extra legal negotiations. A child has no earnings history, therefore, there is no income history from which compensation can be derived.

The parent of any child would argue their child has the earning potential of Bill Gates while the company would argue the child has a higher probability of having the earning potential of a homeless heroin addict. From WDW perspective, they have done the right thing. WDW could have won a short term victory but would have imposed great damage on the brand.

 

[ChrisM]

Disgusting as this may be, this is what is done in court and extra legal negotiations. A child has no earnings history, therefore, there is no income history from which compensation can be derived.

The parent of any child would argue their child has the earning potential of Bill Gates while the company would argue the child has a higher probability of having the earning potential of a homeless heroin addict. From WDW perspective, they have done the right thing. WDW could have won a short term victory but would have imposed great damage on the brand.

Everything you've said is true, but you're completely missing the "pain and suffering" and "emotional distress" angles to such a case.

Given the somewhat unique nature of this event - especially the juxtaposition of a gruesome animal attack with the location it occurred in -mediators are going to be thinking what sorts of verdicts a jury trial might conjure up. And I'm telling you that those numbers would be very, very large.

 

[Phil12]

Everything you've said is true, but you're completely missing the "pain and suffering" and "emotional distress" angles to such a case.

Given the somewhat unique nature of this event - especially the juxtaposition of a gruesome animal attack with the location it occurred in -mediators are going to be thinking what sorts of verdicts a jury trial might conjure up. And I'm telling you that those numbers would be very, very large.

Under Florida tort law if a jury awards an amount of money that the judge determines to be “excessive,” the judge may reduce those damages after trial. And remember, Florida is a comparative negligence state therefore any compensation for pain and suffering would be reduced as well.

 

[jackson2005]

Of course they did, as they should. Although "paying them off" indicates that the parents were going to sue but were convinced not to by a payment. It might be that they never intended to sue and that Disney felt it was the right thing to try to compensate them for their loss.

Disney does good a lot of things that no one knows about. My granddaughter cut her finger on a ride, not their fault. We went to first aid to get a bandage, after they fixed it they told her she could pick a stuffed animal out in the store just to make her happy.

 

[Bacon]

Very respectable. There are too many that will sue anyone over much less.

Like there not being one french fry or chicken nugget