CDZ Conservatives and personal responsibility

[320 Years of History]

Among the key points of exception I have with so-called conservatives is this.

Time and again so-called conservatives want to say the government isn't responsible and should not take on the burden of caring for folks who find themselves "behind the eight ball," so to speak. It's each of our own responsibility to do what is needed to fend for ourselves and our families. Yet when a situation like the "alligator" or "gorilla" one comes about, those very same conservatives are quick to blame someone else and bring suit.

Why isn't the person's own fault for just being irrational, for, quite simply not thinking?

People, ostensibly conservatives, decry the "nanny state," yet they are all for it and it's consequences when there's a means by which they or someone can use it to sue someone and get a fistful of money for what really is their own failure to act within a reasonable level of circumspection. And I mean really, when it comes to one's own personal safety, just how much circumspection is too much to expect of a person? Do we not all have survival instincts?

 

[OldLady]

So people from Nebraska are expected to be aware that their 2 year old can't wade at Disney World because the lagoon is infested with alligators? When there is nothing but a small "No swimming" sign? How many "No swimming" signs have we seen at hotels, etc. when a lifeguard isn't on duty. I don't see that as being a "failure to act within a reasonable level of circumspection." The dad did try to wrestle the child from the 'gator, but he lost.
The alligator incident, imo, is an example of Disney's failure to warn.

 

[320 Years of History]

So people from Nebraska are expected to be aware that their 2 year old can't wade at Disney World because the lagoon is infested with alligators? When there is nothing but a small "No swimming" sign? How many "No swimming" signs have we seen at hotels, etc. when a lifeguard isn't on duty. I don't see that as being a "failure to act within a reasonable level of circumspection." The dad did try to wrestle the child from the 'gator, but he lost. The alligator incident, imo, is an example of Disney's failure to warn.

Red:
Yes. Even for visitors from Nebraska, knowing that Florida is alligator country and understanding the general nature of alligators -- that is, that they powerful, carnivorous, amphibious, lunge feeding creatures -- constitutes part of a general body of knowledge, as opposed to specialized knowledge, that any American can reasonably be expected to possess and apply as they go about their business in Florida, and thus at Disney World.


Blue:
Actually, I've seen "no diving" signs at hotel pools, but that's because the water is too shallow. I've only ever seen "no swimming" signs at natural water (ocean shores, lake shores, ponds, etc.) when there's something unsafe about being in the water.

I've seen plenty of "no swimming during the hours of XYZ" because there's no lifeguard on duty, but that too indicates that I, one, should not go in the water when there's no lifeguard present. Did Disney have a lifeguard present at the lagoon? I don't think so; thus not going into the water is a reasonable action to assume folks will take given that it's no secret that alligators live in Florida and Disney's lagoon water is in Florida. If one wants to take one's chances and enter Florida's waters, fine, but don't blame me, or Disney in this case, if the risk one takes begets disaster.

Pink:
Yes, in tort law, there is the concept of "duty to warn." I'm fine with that duty, but to my understanding, it requires that there exist a so-called "special relationship" exist. (For a good layman's explanation see this: Duty to Warn) I don't think Disney had a special relationship with the parents and child with regard to the alligators in the lagoon, but Disney clearly does have a special relationship with its guests as goes things like the food it serves, the rooms, and entertainment it provides to them.

Let me explain...Let's say that somewhere on Disney's property there are woods/trees and in one of them, hornets establish a nest.

• Is it reasonable that an adult should foresee that trees/woods may contain hornet nests? Yes.
• Is it reasonable to expect adults to either eschew the woods/avoid the tree(s) if they are unwilling to risk being stung by one or many hornets? Yes.
• Should Disney take action upon learning that either nest exists on their property? Yes.
  • Did anyone inform Disney of the existence of an alligator prior to the boy's being attacked? Not that I've seen in any news reports.
  • Does Disney routinely take action to evacuate alligators when it becomes aware that one/some are in it's waters? Yes.
  • Should Disney daily, perhaps more frequently, look for alligators in its waters? I don't think so because (1) the nature of alligator habits/movements is such that one would have to do so practically all day, every day, and (2) people need not be told to avoid alligators and the water they live in.
• Should Disney need to tell visitors to avoid the nests, to warn them that hornets can be deadly? No. That hornets, like alligators, can be deadly is part of what "anyone" (an adult) can be expected to know.
  
• Does the exterminator Disney contracts to remove the hornets and their nest have a duty to warn others to keep clear as s/he's dealing with the nests? Yes, and s/he does because he knows he's exciting the creatures and that doing so puts bystanders at greater risk. However, is it reasonable to expect that visitors who know the hornet habitat/homes exist where they do will steer clear of them? Yes it is.

It's much the same with the alligators and the lagoon. It's not expecting too much to expect that adults know alligators live in water in Florida, waters like the lagoon abutting the Disney hotel where the boy and his parents were. The lagoon is an alligator habitat/home. It's in plain sight just as is the hornet's nest, all the more so as one need not adjust one's line of sight (look up) specifically to see it.

In what circumstance might an alligator attack be rightly seen as Disney's fault? Well, if Disney has an outdoor pool (or indoor one) that's not illuminated and a guest standing by the pool is attacked by a gator lunging out of the pool, yes, I can totally see Disney being at fault, assuming the pool has no signs telling people to stay away/out if the pool isn't lit or of Disney doesn't maintain a fence around the pool, or something of that nature or similar. That's just not the case with a lagoon, which is part of a natural environment. (Even if the lagoon is man made, it's been made such that it becomes part of the natural environment and it looks like it is or was always part of the natural environment.) Alligators are also part of the natural environs in Florida, so it stands to reason that being in the water, the lagoon, isn't a thing to do if one is unwilling to risk encountering or being attacked by an alligator, or anything else that might live in (be) the lagoon.

So, to my mind, while there can and often does exist a duty to warn, that duty does not and did not exist as goes Disney and its guests who congregate around the lagoon. If they want to go into the lagoon water, they should do so in a boat, not by wading in.

Am I blaming the boy's parents, not specifically. What would be the point of doing so? Their child is dead and that's punishing more than enough. But I'm not blaming Disney either. Some things happen that are nobody's fault. The recent alligator attack strikes me as one of those things. Mother Nature is like that.

 

[Boss]

Personal responsibility doesn't mean we should suspend liability laws. One has nothing to do with the other. In fact, liability is a form of responsibility. You are responsible to warn your patrons or potential patrons of dangers and threats which may be present on your property... it's not the patron's responsibility to figure it out on their own.

 

[320 Years of History]

Personal responsibility doesn't mean we should suspend liability laws. One has nothing to do with the other. In fact, liability is a form of responsibility. You are responsible to warn your patrons or potential patrons of dangers and threats which may be present on your property... it's not the patron's responsibility to figure it out on their own.

Well, we clearly disagree on that. I think it's one's responsibility to warn others of things they cannot be reasonably expected to suss on their own.

For example, food producers have a duty to inform potential buyers of the food that the item was produced in a place that also processes/uses peanut products because the buyer has no basis to know that. Drug companies have a duty to warn folks of the potential consequences of a given medication because the patient would not otherwise know.

That there may be alligators in a body of Florida water is well within the scope of things a person can be expected to know. Adults, not children, are expected to be able to assess the risk of various actions and act accordingly. Nobody should need to tell another adult that. A parent (or adult), on the other hand has a duty to inform a child of that risk and act to keep the child from entering the water if the adult/parent is averse to the child's taking the risk of doing so.

 

[Holos]

Is all this rhetorical once again?

 

[Boss]

Well, we clearly disagree on that. I think it's one's responsibility to warn others of things they cannot be reasonably expected to suss on their own.

For example, food producers have a duty to inform potential buyers of the food that the item was produced in a place that also processes/uses peanut products because the buyer has no basis to know that. Drug companies have a duty to warn folks of the potential consequences of a given medication because the patient would not otherwise know.

That there may be alligators in a body of Florida water is well within the scope of things a person can be expected to know.

A business is liable for the safety of their patrons. It doesn't matter if you assume people should be aware of things, it's not their responsibility to be aware of safety hazards on your property. They have a reasonable expectation to be protected from danger or at least be warned of potential danger.

This only falls under "personal responsibility" if reasonable efforts have been made to warn them of dangers and they ignore the warnings. Now... I will caveat this with "KNOWN dangers" because there is no possible way for a business or anyone else to anticipate every potential danger. For instance... Florida is also notorious for sinkholes. Had a sinkhole suddenly appeared out of nowhere and swallowed the child, the business had no way of knowing that would happen. Under that circumstance, they aren't liable. Liability is about known dangers and surely they knew there were alligators present and they posed a danger to small children.

There is another aspect to this that many aren't considering. Alligators are not natural predatory animals. Crocodiles are, but alligators are docile for the most part and will not attack a human unless it's a relatively small human and they are hungry. Many resorts in Florida as well as southern Georgia, have known alligator populations and they keep the alligators fed regularly so they don't go after little Johnny. Nevertheless, they still post warning signs so that the public is aware of the danger.

 

[320 Years of History]

Well, we clearly disagree on that. I think it's one's responsibility to warn others of things they cannot be reasonably expected to suss on their own.

For example, food producers have a duty to inform potential buyers of the food that the item was produced in a place that also processes/uses peanut products because the buyer has no basis to know that. Drug companies have a duty to warn folks of the potential consequences of a given medication because the patient would not otherwise know.

That there may be alligators in a body of Florida water is well within the scope of things a person can be expected to know.

A business is liable for the safety of their patrons. It doesn't matter if you assume people should be aware of things, it's not their responsibility to be aware of safety hazards on your property. They have a reasonable expectation to be protected from danger or at least be warned of potential danger.

This only falls under "personal responsibility" if reasonable efforts have been made to warn them of dangers and they ignore the warnings. Now... I will caveat this with "KNOWN dangers" because there is no possible way for a business or anyone else to anticipate every potential danger. For instance... Florida is also notorious for sinkholes. Had a sinkhole suddenly appeared out of nowhere and swallowed the child, the business had no way of knowing that would happen. Under that circumstance, they aren't liable. Liability is about known dangers and surely they knew there were alligators present and they posed a danger to small children.

There is another aspect to this that many aren't considering. Alligators are not natural predatory animals. Crocodiles are, but alligators are docile for the most part and will not attack a human unless it's a relatively small human and they are hungry. Many resorts in Florida as well as southern Georgia, have known alligator populations and they keep the alligators fed regularly so they don't go after little Johnny. Nevertheless, they still post warning signs so that the public is aware of the danger.

As I said, we clearly disagree. And, yes, it may be that I disagree with existing legal precedent on similar tort matters. It's not the concept of liability that I dismiss entirely; I certainly think there can be situations wherein one party is liable to another, as is the case with the drug and food examples I provided earlier.

Were the alligator an uncommon animal, one about which it's general nature might not be reasonably inferred, sure, I'd say that Disney has the duty to warn folks of the dangers. Such an animal is a cassowary. They're birds, and not birds of prey. People don't generally think of birds as being violent or particularly dangerous, so if there were cassowaries around, it'd be within Disney's scope of responsibility to inform guests they are there and that one should give them a wide berth or risk death or very serious injury.

​

It's just not the same with birds as it is with reptiles. People largely "get" that reptiles, especially big ones with lots of big teeth, are dangerous and to be avoided if possible. Not wading into potentially alligator (or crocodile) infested waters is very possible and a common sense thing to do. And that's my point at the heart of this matter. Yours, my and others' failure to exercise common sense is not someone else's fault. I don't think our liability laws (and the courts, by extension) should placate folks' desire to discard the exercise of common sense. That is precisely why I don't think Disney is at fault and why I don't think Disney, after the boy's having been attacked, owes anything to the boy's parents.

Red:
I think the alligator's presence is quite similar to that of the layers of earth beneath any given spot of land. I think that Disney, like its guests, knew there could be a gator present, just as I sitting nowhere near Disney know there may be alligators present at Disney, but I think too that Disney had no specific knowledge one was present. I don't think the boy or his parents knew a gator was about either, but knowing one may be present, even though they didn't know one was present, should, IMO, be enough for them to have known, particularly given the presence of "no swimming" signs, to stay out of the water.

I have a cabin in the mountains and there are without question bears around. They come and go on my property. I don't go wandering around woods there at night because I know a bear may be around. Occasionally, I (or the gardener) will find holes in the ground around my home in D.C. Neither of us sticks our hand down the hole, or other body part close to it, to see if something's in there. Why? Because we don't know what may be in there, or if "whatever" creature is there at the time.

They say that discretion is the better part of valor. Well, the above examples are just two simple illustrations of exercising discretion in the light of dubiety. Skepticism is a survival instinct and it calls us to exercise a reasonable degree of caution in the face of unknowns, or to have some degree of chutzpah, the exercise of which is always AYOR. My view is that one can take whatever risks one wants, but in doing so, one has to accept that if the risk becomes calamity, it's not someone else's fault. I think that way about most situations, not just the "Disney" one that's in the news lately.

Blue:
Say what? Alligators do not eat plants. They are definitely predators, and that makes them predatory.

Pink:
I don't know how docile alligators are. I also have no will, desire, curiosity, gall or verve to test their placidity by wading or swimming in water where I have reason to suspect they may be present and I don't know them not to be there. I certainly would not have let my children so, and when we visited Disney World, I didn't. We stayed out of the water, and back from the water's edge, because there may have been gators in it and we didn't know if there were or not.


It is my understanding that, as you state, alligators don't generally see humans as "dinner." It's my speculation that the alligator that attacked the boy at Disney realized the boy was not what it wanted to eat, which is why the boy's body was found intact.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Conservatives and personal responsibility"

This is another example of the hypocrisy common to most on the right.

 

[320 Years of History]

"Conservatives and personal responsibility"

This is another example of the hypocrisy common to most on the right.

I think I know what you mean by the remarks above, but I'm not sure. Can you clarify a bit?

I certainly think my stance on the matter of tort liability and one's taking personal ownership of one's good and bad deeds is a conservative one. It may not align with what some conservative party thinks, but I also don't think that toeing the line to a party platform is what it means to be conservative or liberal.

 

[320 Years of History]

Is all this rhetorical once again?

If you mean the questions in the OP, yes, but a good deal less so than were the ones in the other thread you have in mind. All of the the questions in post #3 are fully rhetorical. You can tell when a question is fully rhetorical because the writer will, very shortly after asking it, answer the question s/he posed.

Here are some of my threads that in their OPs ask questions that are fully not rhetorical:

• Debate Now - Non-partisan discussion: What's so bad/good about the state of "things" in the U.S?
  
• Debate Now - Campaign Finance Reform
  
• Debate Now - True, somewhat true, not true, misunderstood, misspoken....

 

[JoeMoma]

Well, we clearly disagree on that. I think it's one's responsibility to warn others of things they cannot be reasonably expected to suss on their own.

For example, food producers have a duty to inform potential buyers of the food that the item was produced in a place that also processes/uses peanut products because the buyer has no basis to know that. Drug companies have a duty to warn folks of the potential consequences of a given medication because the patient would not otherwise know.

That there may be alligators in a body of Florida water is well within the scope of things a person can be expected to know.

A business is liable for the safety of their patrons. It doesn't matter if you assume people should be aware of things, it's not their responsibility to be aware of safety hazards on your property. They have a reasonable expectation to be protected from danger or at least be warned of potential danger.

This only falls under "personal responsibility" if reasonable efforts have been made to warn them of dangers and they ignore the warnings. Now... I will caveat this with "KNOWN dangers" because there is no possible way for a business or anyone else to anticipate every potential danger. For instance... Florida is also notorious for sinkholes. Had a sinkhole suddenly appeared out of nowhere and swallowed the child, the business had no way of knowing that would happen. Under that circumstance, they aren't liable. Liability is about known dangers and surely they knew there were alligators present and they posed a danger to small children.

There is another aspect to this that many aren't considering. Alligators are not natural predatory animals. Crocodiles are, but alligators are docile for the most part and will not attack a human unless it's a relatively small human and they are hungry. Many resorts in Florida as well as southern Georgia, have known alligator populations and they keep the alligators fed regularly so they don't go after little Johnny. Nevertheless, they still post warning signs so that the public is aware of the danger.

Alligators are not natural predatory animals? Oh yes they are. But their natural prey is usually smaller than adult humans. But a two year old toddler is just the right size.

IMHO, both Disney and the parents bare responsibility. That being said, no matter how diligently people try, tragic events like this will happen. It's the curse of Mr. Murphy.

 

[Boss]

Well, we clearly disagree on that. I think it's one's responsibility to warn others of things they cannot be reasonably expected to suss on their own.

For example, food producers have a duty to inform potential buyers of the food that the item was produced in a place that also processes/uses peanut products because the buyer has no basis to know that. Drug companies have a duty to warn folks of the potential consequences of a given medication because the patient would not otherwise know.

That there may be alligators in a body of Florida water is well within the scope of things a person can be expected to know.

A business is liable for the safety of their patrons. It doesn't matter if you assume people should be aware of things, it's not their responsibility to be aware of safety hazards on your property. They have a reasonable expectation to be protected from danger or at least be warned of potential danger.

This only falls under "personal responsibility" if reasonable efforts have been made to warn them of dangers and they ignore the warnings. Now... I will caveat this with "KNOWN dangers" because there is no possible way for a business or anyone else to anticipate every potential danger. For instance... Florida is also notorious for sinkholes. Had a sinkhole suddenly appeared out of nowhere and swallowed the child, the business had no way of knowing that would happen. Under that circumstance, they aren't liable. Liability is about known dangers and surely they knew there were alligators present and they posed a danger to small children.

There is another aspect to this that many aren't considering. Alligators are not natural predatory animals. Crocodiles are, but alligators are docile for the most part and will not attack a human unless it's a relatively small human and they are hungry. Many resorts in Florida as well as southern Georgia, have known alligator populations and they keep the alligators fed regularly so they don't go after little Johnny. Nevertheless, they still post warning signs so that the public is aware of the danger.

As I said, we clearly disagree. And, yes, it may be that I disagree with existing legal precedent on similar tort matters. It's not the concept of liability that I dismiss entirely; I certainly think there can be situations wherein one party is liable to another, as is the case with the drug and food examples I provided earlier.

Were the alligator an uncommon animal, one about which it's general nature might not be reasonably inferred, sure, I'd say that Disney has the duty to warn folks of the dangers. Such an animal is a cassowary. They're birds, and not birds of prey. People don't generally think of birds as being violent or particularly dangerous, so if there were cassowaries around, it'd be within Disney's scope of responsibility to inform guests they are there and that one should give them a wide berth or risk death or very serious injury.

​

It's just not the same with birds as it is with reptiles. People largely "get" that reptiles, especially big ones with lots of big teeth, are dangerous and to be avoided if possible. Not wading into potentially alligator (or crocodile) infested waters is very possible and a common sense thing to do. And that's my point at the heart of this matter. Yours, my and others' failure to exercise common sense is not someone else's fault. I don't think our liability laws (and the courts, by extension) should placate folks' desire to discard the exercise of common sense. That is precisely why I don't think Disney is at fault and why I don't think Disney, after the boy's having been attacked, owes anything to the boy's parents.

Red:
I think the alligator's presence is quite similar to that of the layers of earth beneath any given spot of land. I think that Disney, like its guests, knew there could be a gator present, just as I sitting nowhere near Disney know there may be alligators present at Disney, but I think too that Disney had no specific knowledge one was present. I don't think the boy or his parents knew a gator was about either, but knowing one may be present, even though they didn't know one was present, should, IMO, be enough for them to have known, particularly given the presence of "no swimming" signs, to stay out of the water.

I have a cabin in the mountains and there are without question bears around. They come and go on my property. I don't go wandering around woods there at night because I know a bear may be around. Occasionally, I (or the gardener) will find holes in the ground around my home in D.C. Neither of us sticks our hand down the hole, or other body part close to it, to see if something's in there. Why? Because we don't know what may be in there, or if "whatever" creature is there at the time.

They say that discretion is the better part of valor. Well, the above examples are just two simple illustrations of exercising discretion in the light of dubiety. Skepticism is a survival instinct and it calls us to exercise a reasonable degree of caution in the face of unknowns, or to have some degree of chutzpah, the exercise of which is always AYOR. My view is that one can take whatever risks one wants, but in doing so, one has to accept that if the risk becomes calamity, it's not someone else's fault. I think that way about most situations, not just the "Disney" one that's in the news lately.

Blue:
Say what? Alligators do not eat plants. They are definitely predators, and that makes them predatory.

Pink:
I don't know how docile alligators are. I also have no will, desire, curiosity, gall or verve to test their placidity by wading or swimming in water where I have reason to suspect they may be present and I don't know them not to be there. I certainly would not have let my children so, and when we visited Disney World, I didn't. We stayed out of the water, and back from the water's edge, because there may have been gators in it and we didn't know if there were or not.


It is my understanding that, as you state, alligators don't generally see humans as "dinner." It's my speculation that the alligator that attacked the boy at Disney realized the boy was not what it wanted to eat, which is why the boy's body was found intact.

I understand what you are trying to say but let's be clear... Liability laws are always adjudicated. There is no "automatic liability" in any situation, because all situations are different. I don't know all the details of the Disney case, perhaps they weren't legally liable? A court has to determine that based on the evidence. It's not a matter of my opinion or your opinion, it's up to a court and judge to decide. I am merely speaking on behalf of what the law says and it does state that property owners are liable for the reasonable safety of guests. Now, there is a lot of leeway in that... what is "safe" ...what is "reasonable"? Again, it depends on the circumstances. Certainly, if they are aware of a safety risk and they take no precautions to warn guests, they are liable in my opinion. Perhaps their "no swimming" sign should have included "alligators present" and "keep small children away" or something to that effect? If they have taken such precautions their liability is mitigated to some degree and it can make all the difference in a legal case.

As for my comments about alligators being predators, I should have more correctly stated, they are not aggressive predators. They do not attack humans, generally speaking. The only alligator attacks I am aware of are 1) defensive, when they are attacked first and 2) small children when they are hungry. They are unlike sharks or lions, they are non-aggressive predators.

If you ever go to the Okefenokee State Park in South Georgia, it's a swamp... they offer boat tours to visiting guests... My first venture there was an eye-opener. We purchased our boat ride ticket and were instructed to follow the trail down to the landing... As we started down the trail, we noticed what appeared to be "landscape timbers" lining the sides of the path... upon closer examination, they were not landscape timbers at all... they were live ALLIGATORS! We literally had to walk a gauntlet of alligators to get to the boat. This was a bit unnerving to say the least because we had no idea they wouldn't eat us alive. Of course, we were reassured the gators had been fed well and posed no threat. Still, there was absolutely nothing between you and the gators just a few feet away. Crocodiles, on the other hand, are a completely different story.

 

[Boss]

Alligators are not natural predatory animals? Oh yes they are.

Sorry... Meant to say they are not AGGRESSIVE predators.

 

[320 Years of History]

I am merely speaking on behalf of what the law says and it does state that property owners are liable for the reasonable safety of guests. Now, there is a lot of leeway in that... what is "safe" ...what is "reasonable"?

What is reasonable, most especially with regard to each of our burden to "own our sh*t," both good and bad, fortunate and unfortunate? That is the central question underlying this thread's very raison d'etre. Thinking about the recent "gator" and "gorilla" matters catalyzed my creating this thread, and obviously my having mentioned them in the OP made them the foils that drove the line of conversation; however, they aren't the only situations where I think the question of what is the reasonable extent of onus we each have for our own prosperity and avoidance of harm.

If I fall down the stairs or slip on the floor or on a rug in a place of business, or even in your home, that's my fault, not yours or the business', provided the stairs/floor are "normal," so to speak. Sure, if you or the business just washed them and they are wet (or "whatever") and it's not obvious that the traction on the floor/stairs is less than on might normally expect, there could be some element of culpability.

If I go to school for 16 years (K-B.S.) and achieve only mediocre grades, it's my fault -- not the school's, not the teachers', and not society's -- that I don't get one of the best (or best paying) jobs in my field. There again, might the/a school or teacher or societal construct, or even some individual who isn't any of those three be at fault? Yes, that's possible, but certainly for myself, my kids and most folks, none of those things are/were extant, so if I or they don't succeed/achieve to our ideal levels, it's nobody's fault but our own.

When one finds oneself out of a job and one cannot get another job that was as "good" as the one one once held, to the extent one cannot because expired is the need for the skills one has to offer, it's nobody's fault but one's own. Can it be someone else's fault? In rare cases, sure, it could be, but for most folks it's not.

Those are but three illustrations of what I mean when I write about personal responsibility. The basic principle, IMO, applies at every level of one's existence, not just as the very personal level, a "salt hitting the road" level, such as considering whether to wade in water that may be infested with alligators, or keeping close eye on one's predictably fascinated and excited kid at the zoo to make sure s/he doesn't in a moment of enthusiasm clamor and crawl their way through protections -- ones that are designed and placed more to keep the gorilla in than to keep humans out -- into a gorilla exhibit.

I understand what you are trying to say but let's be clear... Liability laws are always adjudicated. There is no "automatic liability" in any situation, because all situations are different. I don't know all the details of the Disney case, perhaps they weren't legally liable? A court has to determine that based on the evidence. It's not a matter of my opinion or your opinion, it's up to a court and judge to decide.

Yes. I think we each understand the other's position.

I agree that the matter is in fact up to a judge and perhaps up to a court. I can say that were I the judge before whom the "gator" suit first appears, based on what I know from the news reports, and my sense of what is reasonable, based on my sense of one's personal responsibility, I'd adjudge the matter as frivolous and summarily dismiss the case, assuming that's an option I have. My reasons for doing so are the points I've made.

I will infer that you would not do the same. I'm okay with the fact that you would not. I suspect that folks who, like me, espouse a broader and more strict application of "we each are obliged to own our sh*t" would sooner I sit on that bench. Folks who want a less strict application of that principle would sooner I didn't. The same sort of thing is precisely what's in play when Presidents appoint and the Senate (usually) votes on SCOTUS and other federal court judges.

As we started down the trail, we noticed what appeared to be "landscape timbers" lining the sides of the path... upon closer examination, they were not landscape timbers at all... they were live ALLIGATORS! We literally had to walk a gauntlet of alligators to get to the boat. This was a bit unnerving to say the least because we had no idea they wouldn't eat us alive. Of course, we were reassured the gators had been fed well and posed no threat. Still, there was absolutely nothing between you and the gators just a few feet away. Crocodiles, on the other hand, are a completely different story.

Not that it's relevant to the central thread topic, but as far as I know, while keeping the gators well fed surely has something to do with visitors' relative safety as they walk past the beasts, their being fully out of water (assuming they were; I haven't been to that park/venue) has a lot to do with it. Neither alligators nor crocodiles are keen to attack when they are out of water, but in rare cases, if they are hungry enough, for example, they probably will.

• What to Do if You Encounter a Crocodile
  
• Common Myths and the Truth about Alligators
  
• Can you really escape an alligator if you run in a zigzag?

Another factor is that most humans just aren't easily swallowed by alligators, which are purportedly a tiny bit lazier than are crocodiles. Crocs, on the other hand, don't really give a damn. If it's too big to swallow in one gulp, so what; they'll rip off a piece that can be swallowed in one gulp. That said, gators use the same tactic to break down a large meal into "gulp size" chunks.

​

It could be that the gator did try "rolling" a limb off the boy, but the boy's body was just too light, as is whatever that creature in the video is, to provide the leverage needed to do so effectively. Notwithstanding my earlier speculation about the gator figuring out the boy wasn't what it wanted to eat, I realize too that doesn't at all have to be so and it may well not have been so, for to the best of my knowledge, while crocodilians have preferred meals, they, like many predators, are perfectly capable of being indiscriminate feeders.

​

 

[OldLady]

Disney had no business installing sandy beach and beach chairs around a body of water that was infested with alligators. That gives the clear impression that this is a beach, where 100% of people assume one goes swimming. Most people would assume the "No swimming" signs are due to no lifeguard present, or some other liability issue, not that there are predatory reptiles in the water. At a Disney resort? Come on; this isn't the Everglades, where one knows to watch out. Disney caters to small humans; that is their business. They know alligators attack small humans and that alligators live in that water. Alligator warnings and NO manufactured beach environment would have been much more appropriate.
Folks from Nebraska have no duty to know that an alligator would be in Disney's lagoon surrounded by inviting beach and beach chairs, unless they were told. They weren't warned in any way. Not everyone has been to environments where alligators can be in any body of water, including bodies of water "dressed up" like a family beach inside a family resort.

 

[320 Years of History]

Disney had no business installing sandy beach and beach chairs around a body of water that was infested with alligators. That gives the clear impression that this is a beach where 100% of people assume one goes swimming. Most people would assume the "No swimming" signs are due to no lifeguard present, or some other liability issue, not that there are predatory reptiles in the water.

Red:
Really? Even as there are "no swimming" signs present? Seeing beach chairs and "no swimming" signs, I'd think that it's a beach were one isn't supposed to go in the water, but sitting in the beach chairs is perfectly safe. Had the gator run up and dragged someone out of a beach chair, yes, I'd agree Disney was liable. Had the creature snagged someone who wasn't actually in the water, yes, I'd agree Disney was liable.


Blue:

Don’t build roadblocks out of assumptions.
― Lorii Myers, Targeting Success​

And so despite the admonition not to swim, and seeing no lifeguards present, most people would also take it upon themselves to ignore the "no swimming" sign and go into the water? Maybe that's so, but that still doesn't mean it should be so, and it doesn't mean that Disney should be held liable for most people's making poor assumptions.

A lion of truth never assumes anything without validity. Assumptions are quick exits for lazy minds that like to graze out in the fields without bother.
― Suzy Kassem, Rise Up and Salute the Sun: The Writings of Suzy Kassem​

At a Disney resort? Come on; this isn't the Everglades, where one knows to watch out. Disney caters to small humans; that is their business. They know alligators attack small humans and that alligators live in that water. Alligator warnings and NO manufactured beach environment would have been much more appropriate.

Red:
They also know that "small humans," children, don't arrive at Disney on their own and they don't get dropped off at a hotel and left to fend for themselves. It's not at all unreasonable for Disney to expect parents to advise their kids to heed the warning signs and ensure they indeed do so. Tough and distasteful as it may be to accept, it's nonetheless so that children are at the mercy of their parents' benighted nescience just as they benefit from their parents' virtuosity and know-how.


Blue:
Hindsight is 20/20. We can all sit at our computer and identify myriad ways things may have been done differently by Disney, the boy and the boy's parents.

As that applies to Disney, it has some 40 years of experience with guests on its property and not once had one been attacked by an alligator. That's quite a good track record for the "no swimming" signs', among other things including guests' willingness to heed the signs, success at providing for a safe environment there. Apparently millions of other people have managed to heed the signs and not go in the water. Sure, it may be that folks did enter the water and they were just lucky, yet while that is possible, it's very, very long odds that that many people over so many years have merely been very lucky.

As for the boy and his parents, all they needed to do was heed the sign and stay out of the water. They didn't need to and weren't called to make any assumptions about why to stay out of the water. They just needed to follow directions just as have the millions of folks who visit Disney. Did the family have to heed the signs? No they didn't, but in not doing so, they, not Disney, bear the burdens associated with not doing so.

The family was at the Grand Floridian Resort and Spa. That facility has several pools and it doesn't advertize the lagoon as a swimming venue. This is the resorts "beach" pool.

I haven't been to every hotel at Disney, but at none of the ones I've been to has Disney indicated swimming is allowed in any of it's "natural" (looking) bodies of water. In every one of them, guests are directed to the pools to enjoy being in the water.

Folks from Nebraska have no duty to know that an alligator would be in Disney's lagoon surrounded by inviting beach and beach chairs, unless they were told. They weren't warned in any way. Not everyone has been to environments where alligators can be in any body of water, including bodies of water "dressed up" like a family beach inside a family resort.

Red:
I agree. They were under no obligation to know gators would have been or were in the water at the lagoon. They did have a duty to know gators may have been there.


Blue:
I'm not from the locale pictured below, but I vacation there somewhat often.

Above is a "manufactured" resort/beach much like the one at the Grand Floridian. It's merely an ocean resort instead of an inland/freshwater one. There aren't any alligators that may be in the water, but there may be sharks there. Nobody had to tell me, even upon my first visit, that there may be sharks in the water, and I don't know when I'm there whether there is one in the water unless I see it. There aren't signs telling people not to swim. People do so at their own risk.

As you can see, some folks will tempt fate and remain the water with a shark clearly present. I don't know what they are assuming about the shark. I don't really care. I know that upon seeing the shark, I definitely would get out of the water. I know too that one can see a shark, whereas in the water at the Grand Floridian lake/lagoon, one cannot see the gator(s), that is until it's too late.

​

One of the central things going on in this situation is that Mother Nature is involved. At the pools one sees above, one would certainly and rightly hold Disney liable for most of the ills that may befall a guest. Almost without question, a gator attack at one of those pools would be Disney's fault. That which happens at the lake is a different matter. People have an obligation to be aware of very basic things about the natural world, and one of those things is that alligators live in Florida's waters and that gators have the potential to be deadly.

Were the Grand Floridian's "beach" water as clear as the water at the island resort pictured above, sure, it may be safe enough to swim or wade in it. One can see whether there may be a gator there and know whether to go into the water. But it isn't, and that, along with merely being aware that gators may be present is enough for any adult to reason not to go into the water, regardless of what Disney says. That Disney had "no swimming" signs should bolster one's "Spidey sense" in that regard, not lead one to assume that the lack of a lifeguard is why one should not enter the water.

So, yes, while you and I, like I and Boss, find ourselves engaged on who bears the onus in this matter, I'm of the mind that in this situation, the boy and his family do and that Disney does not. It's a matter of personal responsibility in my mind, and only a matter of liability insofar as who failed to exhibit a "normal" level of personal responsibility. I realize that all of us at times make bad choices; when we do, we suffer the consequences, no matter how grave, and that's that. As I stated in my discussion with Boss, I do not see yours, my or others' poor judgment as someone else's fault.

 

[Boss]

So, yes, while you and I, like I and Boss, find ourselves engaged on who bears the onus in this matter, I'm of the mind that in this situation, the boy and his family do and that Disney does not. It's a matter of personal responsibility in my mind, and only a matter of liability insofar as who failed to exhibit a "normal" level of personal responsibility. I realize that all of us at times make bad choices; when we do, we suffer the consequences, no matter how grave, and that's that. As I stated in my discussion with Boss, I do not see yours, my or others' poor judgment as someone else's fault.

The legal issue is not really liability, we just refer to it as that. From the legal standpoint, the issue is whether or not there was negligence on part of Disney... it has nothing to do with the plaintiff. Was Disney negligent in providing sufficient warnings for the dangers present? If the court finds they were, then they are liable.

Based on the information I've heard (and I may not have heard everything), I believe the court will find Disney was negligent in providing sufficient warnings of the danger present.

 

[320 Years of History]

So, yes, while you and I, like I and Boss, find ourselves engaged on who bears the onus in this matter, I'm of the mind that in this situation, the boy and his family do and that Disney does not. It's a matter of personal responsibility in my mind, and only a matter of liability insofar as who failed to exhibit a "normal" level of personal responsibility. I realize that all of us at times make bad choices; when we do, we suffer the consequences, no matter how grave, and that's that. As I stated in my discussion with Boss, I do not see yours, my or others' poor judgment as someone else's fault.

The legal issue is not really liability, we just refer to it as that. From the legal standpoint, the issue is whether or not there was negligence on part of Disney... it has nothing to do with the plaintiff. Was Disney negligent in providing sufficient warnings for the dangers present? If the court finds they were, then they are liable.

Based on the information I've heard (and I may not have heard everything), I believe the court will find Disney was negligent in providing sufficient warnings of the danger present.

Red:
Agree...I was sloppy in my word choice....TY for providing the clarification/correction.

 

[oldsoul]

Among the key points of exception I have with so-called conservatives is this.

Time and again so-called conservatives want to say the government isn't responsible and should not take on the burden of caring for folks who find themselves "behind the eight ball," so to speak. It's each of our own responsibility to do what is needed to fend for ourselves and our families. Yet when a situation like the "alligator" or "gorilla" one comes about, those very same conservatives are quick to blame someone else and bring suit.

Why isn't the person's own fault for just being irrational, for, quite simply not thinking?

People, ostensibly conservatives, decry the "nanny state," yet they are all for it and it's consequences when there's a means by which they or someone can use it to sue someone and get a fistful of money for what really is their own failure to act within a reasonable level of circumspection. And I mean really, when it comes to one's own personal safety, just how much circumspection is too much to expect of a person? Do we not all have survival instincts?

Did you mean to make a generalized statement about all conservatives? If so, have you met them all?
How can one make a blanket statement about all conservatives and retain any credibility as an objective commentator? I would think it to be the same as saying all African-Americans have a particular trait, or all women have a particular reaction. How is what you have said any different?