CDZ Disney, alligators, no swimming and lawsuits

[320 Years of History]

It seems the parents of the two year old boy will sue Disney because an alligator killed their child. You've surely heard the news about it.

What do you think about the lawsuit?

• Is the suit justified?
• Should the parents prevail or should Disney prevail?
• Why or why not?

For my part I think suing Disney is ridiculous, but I also think that Disney will likely settle the case because it won't care to risk all the haranguing that may transpire were they to carry the case to trial. It's the unfortunate situation of "deep pockets" and people, yet again, not taking responsibility for their own mistakes. I happen to think the suit is frivolous and little more than the parents attempting to gain as a consequence of their own failure to keep their kid out of the water. (And, no, I don't think the parents went to Disneyworld with the intent of "sacrificing" their child to alligators so they could then sue Disney.)

Why do I think the burden in this matter rests with the parents and not with Disney?

• It's quite hard to go anywhere in FL without seeing signs about alligators and one'd need to be really stupid not to understand that an alligator can be deadly to a human in the water.​
• Driving all over the place in FL, one cannot help but encounter road signs noting that there are alligators present. I recall on my very first visit to Orlando, FL seeing signs on the road noting the presence of alligators.​

• Disney has "no swimming" signs at its beaches.
  

  

  
  
  

  

  
  
  

  

  
  
  

  

  
  
  ​
• Just how oblivious does one need to be to see alligator signs on the road and arrive at a place in the same state that has water and not have it cross one's mind that there might be alligators in the water?​
• Do people think alligators can't swim or walk from one place to another?​
• What part of "no swimming" would suggest that walking in the water is okay, but swimming there isn't?​
• Then there's the "oh, but it's Disney" factor. Really? Hmm...let me think about that...
  Disney --> Man made.
  Alligators --> "Mother Nature" at her finest...Alligators have outlived the dinosaurs for Christ's sake. That's just common knowledge...and if it isn't, I have only this to offer.
  
  There's nothing on Earth that's going to lead me to think that Disney can control alligator movement. There's also nothing that suggests any body of water in FL doesn't have alligators in it.​

Now was it the parents' job to know a little bit about alligators? Well, in the Midwest where they lived, certainly not. But they were going to Florida, willfully, with their child. You tell me. When you are going on a trip somewhere, do you bother to learn a bit about the flora and fauna of the place before you go, especially the potentially dangerous ones? I sure do. The people I know, to a man and child, do too. We do it not only for safety's sake, but because we want to learn a little about the place we are visiting. The types of things we look into aren't limited to plants and critters. I wouldn't plan a trip to FL during hurricane season.

What I'm getting at isn't how insightful or wise I or my friends are. What I'm saying is that we each have an obligation to look out for our own well being and that of our families, and it's not someone else's fault when we don't do so. It's one's own fault. I think that when we as individuals take ownership of our responsibility for our own fortunes and misfortunes, we'll be better off as a nation of individuals.



Sidebar:​

That notwithstanding, I also think FL has a wicked sense of humor and or vast amounts of outright idiocy.

 

[320 Years of History]

Just to be clear, had, say, the child been taken by an alligator in a Disney swimming pool or bathtub, yes, that'd have been Disney's fault. Although there's still a limit. It's not as though a person cannot see alligator in a swimming pool or bathtub.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It seems the parents of the two year old boy will sue Disney because an alligator killed their child. You've surely heard the news about it.

What do you think about the lawsuit?

• Is the suit justified?
• Should the parents prevail or should Disney prevail?
• Why or why not?

For my part I think suing Disney is ridiculous, but I also think that Disney will likely settle the case because it won't care to risk all the haranguing that may transpire were they to carry the case to trial. It's the unfortunate situation of "deep pockets" and people, yet again, not taking responsibility for their own mistakes. I happen to think the suit is frivolous and little more than the parents attempting to gain as a consequence of their own failure to keep their kid out of the water. (And, no, I don't think the parents went to Disneyworld with the intent of "sacrificing" their child to alligators so they could then sue Disney.)

Why do I think the burden in this matter rests with the parents and not with Disney?

• It's quite hard to go anywhere in FL without seeing signs about alligators and one'd need to be really stupid not to understand that an alligator can be deadly to a human in the water.​
• Driving all over the place in FL, one cannot help but encounter road signs noting that there are alligators present. I recall on my very first visit to Orlando, FL seeing signs on the road noting the presence of alligators.​

• Disney has "no swimming" signs at its beaches.
  

  

  
  
  

  

  
  
  

  

  
  
  

  

  
  ​
• Just how oblivious does one need to be to see alligator signs on the road and arrive at a place in the same state that has water and not have it cross one's mind that there might be alligators in the water?​
• Do people think alligators can't swim or walk from one place to another?​
• What part of "no swimming" would suggest that walking in the water is okay, but swimming there isn't?​
• Then there's the "oh, but it's Disney" factor. Really? Hmm...let me think about that...
  Disney --> Man made.
  Alligators --> "Mother Nature" at her finest...Alligators have outlived the dinosaurs for Christ's sake. That's just common knowledge...and if it isn't, I have only this to offer.
  
  There's nothing on Earth that's going to lead me to think that Disney can control alligator movement. There's also nothing that suggests any body of water in FL doesn't have alligators in it.​

Now was it the parents' job to know a little bit about alligators? Well, in the Midwest where they lived, certainly not. But they were going to Florida, willfully, with their child. You tell me. When you are going on a trip somewhere, do you bother to learn a bit about the flora and fauna of the place before you go, especially the potentially dangerous ones? I sure do. The people I know, to a man and child, do too. We do it not only for safety's sake, but because we want to learn a little about the place we are visiting. The types of things we look into aren't limited to plants and critters. I wouldn't plan a trip to FL during hurricane season.

What I'm getting at isn't how insightful or wise I or my friends are. What I'm saying is that we each have an obligation to look out for our own well being and that of our families, and it's not someone else's fault when we don't do so. It's one's own fault. I think that when we as individuals take ownership of our responsibility for our own fortunes and misfortunes, we'll be better off as a nation of individuals.



Sidebar:​

That notwithstanding, I also think FL has a wicked sense of humor and or vast amounts of outright idiocy.

Just how oblivious does one need to be to see alligator signs on the road and arrive at a place in the same state that has water and not have it cross one's mind that there might be alligators in the water?

Did any of the signs at Disney mention gators?

 

[320 Years of History]

It seems the parents of the two year old boy will sue Disney because an alligator killed their child. You've surely heard the news about it.

What do you think about the lawsuit?

• Is the suit justified?
• Should the parents prevail or should Disney prevail?
• Why or why not?

For my part I think suing Disney is ridiculous, but I also think that Disney will likely settle the case because it won't care to risk all the haranguing that may transpire were they to carry the case to trial. It's the unfortunate situation of "deep pockets" and people, yet again, not taking responsibility for their own mistakes. I happen to think the suit is frivolous and little more than the parents attempting to gain as a consequence of their own failure to keep their kid out of the water. (And, no, I don't think the parents went to Disneyworld with the intent of "sacrificing" their child to alligators so they could then sue Disney.)

Why do I think the burden in this matter rests with the parents and not with Disney?

• It's quite hard to go anywhere in FL without seeing signs about alligators and one'd need to be really stupid not to understand that an alligator can be deadly to a human in the water.​
• Driving all over the place in FL, one cannot help but encounter road signs noting that there are alligators present. I recall on my very first visit to Orlando, FL seeing signs on the road noting the presence of alligators.​

• Disney has "no swimming" signs at its beaches.
  

  

  
  
  

  

  
  
  

  

  
  
  

  
• Just how oblivious does one need to be to see alligator signs on the road and arrive at a place in the same state that has water and not have it cross one's mind that there might be alligators in the water?​
• Do people think alligators can't swim or walk from one place to another?​
• What part of "no swimming" would suggest that walking in the water is okay, but swimming there isn't?​
• Then there's the "oh, but it's Disney" factor. Really? Hmm...let me think about that...
  Disney --> Man made.
  Alligators --> "Mother Nature" at her finest...Alligators have outlived the dinosaurs for Christ's sake. That's just common knowledge...and if it isn't, I have only this to offer.
  
  There's nothing on Earth that's going to lead me to think that Disney can control alligator movement. There's also nothing that suggests any body of water in FL doesn't have alligators in it.​

Now was it the parents' job to know a little bit about alligators? Well, in the Midwest where they lived, certainly not. But they were going to Florida, willfully, with their child. You tell me. When you are going on a trip somewhere, do you bother to learn a bit about the flora and fauna of the place before you go, especially the potentially dangerous ones? I sure do. The people I know, to a man and child, do too. We do it not only for safety's sake, but because we want to learn a little about the place we are visiting. The types of things we look into aren't limited to plants and critters. I wouldn't plan a trip to FL during hurricane season.

What I'm getting at isn't how insightful or wise I or my friends are. What I'm saying is that we each have an obligation to look out for our own well being and that of our families, and it's not someone else's fault when we don't do so. It's one's own fault. I think that when we as individuals take ownership of our responsibility for our own fortunes and misfortunes, we'll be better off as a nation of individuals.



Sidebar:​

That notwithstanding, I also think FL has a wicked sense of humor and or vast amounts of outright idiocy.

Just how oblivious does one need to be to see alligator signs on the road and arrive at a place in the same state that has water and not have it cross one's mind that there might be alligators in the water?

Did any of the signs at Disney mention gators?

Did you look at the photos? Does one really need to be "hit over the head with a hammer" to put together that:

1. One is in Florida.
2. Florida has alligators, as indicated by the road signs and tourist literature.
3. Alligators live in and around water.
4. Alligators have legs and can swim.
5. Disney is in Florida.
6. Disney has bodies of water.
7. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume there may be alligators in the bodies of water at Disney.
8. Therefore, stay the hell out of the water, or don't and take one's chances.

Let me assure you, that is not a "rocket science" level of reasoning. It is not expecting too much to think a pair of adults could put that much of "two and two" together in the interest of their and their kid's safety.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It seems the parents of the two year old boy will sue Disney because an alligator killed their child. You've surely heard the news about it.

What do you think about the lawsuit?

• Is the suit justified?
• Should the parents prevail or should Disney prevail?
• Why or why not?

For my part I think suing Disney is ridiculous, but I also think that Disney will likely settle the case because it won't care to risk all the haranguing that may transpire were they to carry the case to trial. It's the unfortunate situation of "deep pockets" and people, yet again, not taking responsibility for their own mistakes. I happen to think the suit is frivolous and little more than the parents attempting to gain as a consequence of their own failure to keep their kid out of the water. (And, no, I don't think the parents went to Disneyworld with the intent of "sacrificing" their child to alligators so they could then sue Disney.)

Why do I think the burden in this matter rests with the parents and not with Disney?

• It's quite hard to go anywhere in FL without seeing signs about alligators and one'd need to be really stupid not to understand that an alligator can be deadly to a human in the water.​
• Driving all over the place in FL, one cannot help but encounter road signs noting that there are alligators present. I recall on my very first visit to Orlando, FL seeing signs on the road noting the presence of alligators.​

• Disney has "no swimming" signs at its beaches.
  

  

  
  
  

  

  
  
  

  

  
  
  

  
• Just how oblivious does one need to be to see alligator signs on the road and arrive at a place in the same state that has water and not have it cross one's mind that there might be alligators in the water?​
• Do people think alligators can't swim or walk from one place to another?​
• What part of "no swimming" would suggest that walking in the water is okay, but swimming there isn't?​
• Then there's the "oh, but it's Disney" factor. Really? Hmm...let me think about that...
  Disney --> Man made.
  Alligators --> "Mother Nature" at her finest...Alligators have outlived the dinosaurs for Christ's sake. That's just common knowledge...and if it isn't, I have only this to offer.
  
  There's nothing on Earth that's going to lead me to think that Disney can control alligator movement. There's also nothing that suggests any body of water in FL doesn't have alligators in it.​

Now was it the parents' job to know a little bit about alligators? Well, in the Midwest where they lived, certainly not. But they were going to Florida, willfully, with their child. You tell me. When you are going on a trip somewhere, do you bother to learn a bit about the flora and fauna of the place before you go, especially the potentially dangerous ones? I sure do. The people I know, to a man and child, do too. We do it not only for safety's sake, but because we want to learn a little about the place we are visiting. The types of things we look into aren't limited to plants and critters. I wouldn't plan a trip to FL during hurricane season.

What I'm getting at isn't how insightful or wise I or my friends are. What I'm saying is that we each have an obligation to look out for our own well being and that of our families, and it's not someone else's fault when we don't do so. It's one's own fault. I think that when we as individuals take ownership of our responsibility for our own fortunes and misfortunes, we'll be better off as a nation of individuals.



Sidebar:​

That notwithstanding, I also think FL has a wicked sense of humor and or vast amounts of outright idiocy.

Just how oblivious does one need to be to see alligator signs on the road and arrive at a place in the same state that has water and not have it cross one's mind that there might be alligators in the water?

Did any of the signs at Disney mention gators?

Did you look at the photos? Does one really need to be "hit over the head with a hammer" to put together that:

1. One is in Florida.
2. Florida has alligators, as indicated by the road signs and tourist literature.
3. Alligators live in and around water.
4. Alligators have legs and can swim.
5. Disney is in Florida.
6. Disney has bodies of water.
7. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume there may be alligators in the bodies of water at Disney.
8. Therefore, stay the hell out of the water, or don't and take one's chances.

Let me assure you, that is not a "rocket science" level of reasoning. It is not expecting too much to think a pair of adults could put that much of "two and two" together in the interest of their and their kid's safety.

Did you look at the photos?

None of the photos are Disney signs that warn of gators.

 

[320 Years of History]

Re: post #4....For as long as Disney World has been there in Orlando, FL, no alligator "abductions" have occurred. That means that literally millions and millions of people have been able to read and heed the no swimming signs. Now, in 2016, along come two adults from "wherever" who either can't or refuse to do so, and keep their child from doing so too, and it's suddenly Disney's fault to the extent that Disney needs to settle with them out of court or risk its reputation by going to court to defend itself? I'm sorry, I just don't think so.

 

[320 Years of History]

It seems the parents of the two year old boy will sue Disney because an alligator killed their child. You've surely heard the news about it.

What do you think about the lawsuit?

• Is the suit justified?
• Should the parents prevail or should Disney prevail?
• Why or why not?

For my part I think suing Disney is ridiculous, but I also think that Disney will likely settle the case because it won't care to risk all the haranguing that may transpire were they to carry the case to trial. It's the unfortunate situation of "deep pockets" and people, yet again, not taking responsibility for their own mistakes. I happen to think the suit is frivolous and little more than the parents attempting to gain as a consequence of their own failure to keep their kid out of the water. (And, no, I don't think the parents went to Disneyworld with the intent of "sacrificing" their child to alligators so they could then sue Disney.)

Why do I think the burden in this matter rests with the parents and not with Disney?

• It's quite hard to go anywhere in FL without seeing signs about alligators and one'd need to be really stupid not to understand that an alligator can be deadly to a human in the water.​
• Driving all over the place in FL, one cannot help but encounter road signs noting that there are alligators present. I recall on my very first visit to Orlando, FL seeing signs on the road noting the presence of alligators.​

• Disney has "no swimming" signs at its beaches.
  

  

  
  
  

  

  
  
  

  

  
  
  

  
• Just how oblivious does one need to be to see alligator signs on the road and arrive at a place in the same state that has water and not have it cross one's mind that there might be alligators in the water?​
• Do people think alligators can't swim or walk from one place to another?​
• What part of "no swimming" would suggest that walking in the water is okay, but swimming there isn't?​
• Then there's the "oh, but it's Disney" factor. Really? Hmm...let me think about that...
  Disney --> Man made.
  Alligators --> "Mother Nature" at her finest...Alligators have outlived the dinosaurs for Christ's sake. That's just common knowledge...and if it isn't, I have only this to offer.
  
  There's nothing on Earth that's going to lead me to think that Disney can control alligator movement. There's also nothing that suggests any body of water in FL doesn't have alligators in it.​

Now was it the parents' job to know a little bit about alligators? Well, in the Midwest where they lived, certainly not. But they were going to Florida, willfully, with their child. You tell me. When you are going on a trip somewhere, do you bother to learn a bit about the flora and fauna of the place before you go, especially the potentially dangerous ones? I sure do. The people I know, to a man and child, do too. We do it not only for safety's sake, but because we want to learn a little about the place we are visiting. The types of things we look into aren't limited to plants and critters. I wouldn't plan a trip to FL during hurricane season.

What I'm getting at isn't how insightful or wise I or my friends are. What I'm saying is that we each have an obligation to look out for our own well being and that of our families, and it's not someone else's fault when we don't do so. It's one's own fault. I think that when we as individuals take ownership of our responsibility for our own fortunes and misfortunes, we'll be better off as a nation of individuals.



Sidebar:​

That notwithstanding, I also think FL has a wicked sense of humor and or vast amounts of outright idiocy.

Just how oblivious does one need to be to see alligator signs on the road and arrive at a place in the same state that has water and not have it cross one's mind that there might be alligators in the water?

Did any of the signs at Disney mention gators?

Did you look at the photos? Does one really need to be "hit over the head with a hammer" to put together that:

1. One is in Florida.
2. Florida has alligators, as indicated by the road signs and tourist literature.
3. Alligators live in and around water.
4. Alligators have legs and can swim.
5. Disney is in Florida.
6. Disney has bodies of water.
7. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume there may be alligators in the bodies of water at Disney.
8. Therefore, stay the hell out of the water, or don't and take one's chances.

Let me assure you, that is not a "rocket science" level of reasoning. It is not expecting too much to think a pair of adults could put that much of "two and two" together in the interest of their and their kid's safety.

Did you look at the photos?

None of the photos are Disney signs that warn of gators.

Disney shouldn't need gator specific signs. The ones on the road out of the airport are sufficient to inform one that there are alligators in the area.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Re: post #4....For as long as Disney World has been there in Orlando, FL, no alligator "abductions" have occurred. That means that literally millions and millions of people have been able to read and heed the no swimming signs. Now, in 2016, along come two adults from "wherever" who either can't or refuse to do so, and keep their child from doing so too, and it's suddenly Disney's fault to the extent that Disney needs to settle with them out of court or risk its reputation by going to court to defend itself? I'm sorry, I just don't think so.

That means that literally millions and millions of people have been able to read and heed the no swimming signs.

If the signs had mentioned gators, millions would have read them as well.
The poor child wasn't swimming, was he?

and it's suddenly Disney's fault

Did Disney take actions to insure there were no dangerous gators in their lagoon?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It seems the parents of the two year old boy will sue Disney because an alligator killed their child. You've surely heard the news about it.

What do you think about the lawsuit?

• Is the suit justified?
• Should the parents prevail or should Disney prevail?
• Why or why not?

For my part I think suing Disney is ridiculous, but I also think that Disney will likely settle the case because it won't care to risk all the haranguing that may transpire were they to carry the case to trial. It's the unfortunate situation of "deep pockets" and people, yet again, not taking responsibility for their own mistakes. I happen to think the suit is frivolous and little more than the parents attempting to gain as a consequence of their own failure to keep their kid out of the water. (And, no, I don't think the parents went to Disneyworld with the intent of "sacrificing" their child to alligators so they could then sue Disney.)

Why do I think the burden in this matter rests with the parents and not with Disney?

• It's quite hard to go anywhere in FL without seeing signs about alligators and one'd need to be really stupid not to understand that an alligator can be deadly to a human in the water.​
• Driving all over the place in FL, one cannot help but encounter road signs noting that there are alligators present. I recall on my very first visit to Orlando, FL seeing signs on the road noting the presence of alligators.​

• Disney has "no swimming" signs at its beaches.
  

  

  
  
  

  

  
  
  

  

  
  
  

  
• Just how oblivious does one need to be to see alligator signs on the road and arrive at a place in the same state that has water and not have it cross one's mind that there might be alligators in the water?​
• Do people think alligators can't swim or walk from one place to another?​
• What part of "no swimming" would suggest that walking in the water is okay, but swimming there isn't?​
• Then there's the "oh, but it's Disney" factor. Really? Hmm...let me think about that...
  Disney --> Man made.
  Alligators --> "Mother Nature" at her finest...Alligators have outlived the dinosaurs for Christ's sake. That's just common knowledge...and if it isn't, I have only this to offer.
  
  There's nothing on Earth that's going to lead me to think that Disney can control alligator movement. There's also nothing that suggests any body of water in FL doesn't have alligators in it.​

Now was it the parents' job to know a little bit about alligators? Well, in the Midwest where they lived, certainly not. But they were going to Florida, willfully, with their child. You tell me. When you are going on a trip somewhere, do you bother to learn a bit about the flora and fauna of the place before you go, especially the potentially dangerous ones? I sure do. The people I know, to a man and child, do too. We do it not only for safety's sake, but because we want to learn a little about the place we are visiting. The types of things we look into aren't limited to plants and critters. I wouldn't plan a trip to FL during hurricane season.

What I'm getting at isn't how insightful or wise I or my friends are. What I'm saying is that we each have an obligation to look out for our own well being and that of our families, and it's not someone else's fault when we don't do so. It's one's own fault. I think that when we as individuals take ownership of our responsibility for our own fortunes and misfortunes, we'll be better off as a nation of individuals.



Sidebar:​

That notwithstanding, I also think FL has a wicked sense of humor and or vast amounts of outright idiocy.

Just how oblivious does one need to be to see alligator signs on the road and arrive at a place in the same state that has water and not have it cross one's mind that there might be alligators in the water?

Did any of the signs at Disney mention gators?

Did you look at the photos? Does one really need to be "hit over the head with a hammer" to put together that:

1. One is in Florida.
2. Florida has alligators, as indicated by the road signs and tourist literature.
3. Alligators live in and around water.
4. Alligators have legs and can swim.
5. Disney is in Florida.
6. Disney has bodies of water.
7. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume there may be alligators in the bodies of water at Disney.
8. Therefore, stay the hell out of the water, or don't and take one's chances.

Let me assure you, that is not a "rocket science" level of reasoning. It is not expecting too much to think a pair of adults could put that much of "two and two" together in the interest of their and their kid's safety.

Did you look at the photos?

None of the photos are Disney signs that warn of gators.

Disney shouldn't need gator specific signs. The ones on the road out of the airport are sufficient to inform one that there are alligators in the area.

Disney shouldn't need gator specific signs.

Why not? Aren't gators sometimes present in that water?

The ones on the road out of the airport are sufficient to inform one that there are alligators in the area.

Unless the signs near the airport mention the Disney lagoon, why would they be sufficient?

 

[The Professor]

The parents were completely blameless. They were not properly warned about the presence of gators in the lake and all the blame for the child's death falls upon Disney World.

When I saw the “no swimming please” sign I actually laughed out loud. I have reviewed hundreds of cases involving warning labels and signs, and this sign didn't come close to putting anyone on notice of a possible gator attack. Besides, the child was wading, not swimming, so the sign was meaningless. Swimming could have been prohibited for a number of reasons which would have had no effect on wading (contaminated water for example). Even if the child had been swimming the sign gave no indication that this created a potentially life threatening situation. It could have been nothing more than a park rule designed to maintain a certain atmosphere. I would argue that the word “please” implies neither a warning nor a demand but merely a request. Disney World had an absolute legal obligation to warn their guests of any known dangers. They knew there were gators in the lake and were legally obligated to provide adequate warning of this danger. The silly “no swimming please” sign gave no warning whatsoever.

The parents are completely blameless. Merely wading in a few inches of water at the edge of a lake poses no danger of any kind. It's not like wading in the ocean where a wave can knock a child over and carry him into deeper water within seconds. The parents were close enough to the child that the father was able to grab hold of the gator before the child vanished from sight. The parents will sue and Disney World will have to dig deep into their pockets. I would be shocked if the case went to trial since Disney has no legitimate defense and the adverse publicity of a trial would not be in their best interest. My best guess: an out of court settlement in excess of $10 million. It could be a helluva lot more.

There was a similar incident incident at Disney World only a year ago but the child was not injured. Fortunately, the child's father spotted a 6-7 foot gator gator who was rapidly advancing toward the child and was able rescue him. When the father, an attorney, informed the manager about his son's near-fatal experience, she had a cavalier attitude about the entire event. According to the father:

“The manager couldn’t care less. I remember her words, ‘These are resident pets. They’ve known about them for years, they’re not dangerous, they’re not going to harm anybody,'” said Hiden. “I was very upset, very angry, very shocked and I say, ‘I hope to god I never read about a young kid killed by an alligator like that one almost did to my son.'”

San Diego Father Says Gators At Disney Also Went After His Son

On the plus side, I've read where Disney World is already replacing the laughingly worthless “no swimming please” signs with proper alligator warnings. I don't know why it took them so long. Well, actually I think I do. They thought more about protecting their image of carefree entertainment than they did about the safety of their guests.

Legally, it is not the parent's duty to research all the possible dangers in a vacation resort. Vacationers reasonably expect they will be safe in an internationally know resort. It is the obligation of the resort management to protect their guests. At a minimum Disney World was legally obligated to provide proper notice about the presence of gators and this they failed to do. From a legal perspective, even this may be insufficient but that is an issue I will reserve for another time.

Note: The above is from other articles I have written on other threads. I thought what I wrote should be repeated here.

 

[320 Years of History]

Re: post #4....For as long as Disney World has been there in Orlando, FL, no alligator "abductions" have occurred. That means that literally millions and millions of people have been able to read and heed the no swimming signs. Now, in 2016, along come two adults from "wherever" who either can't or refuse to do so, and keep their child from doing so too, and it's suddenly Disney's fault to the extent that Disney needs to settle with them out of court or risk its reputation by going to court to defend itself? I'm sorry, I just don't think so.

That means that literally millions and millions of people have been able to read and heed the no swimming signs.

If the signs had mentioned gators, millions would have read them as well.
The poor child wasn't swimming, was he?

and it's suddenly Disney's fault

Did Disney take actions to insure there were no dangerous gators in their lagoon?

I am somewhat surprised you are tacitly arguing that the parents' glibness, and the consequence of their insouciance, is Disney's fault. I get that you are moved to sympathy for the child and parents' fate. Who isn't sorrowful over that? I am too. But that doesn't mean I think it's Disney's fault that the child was killed.

Red:
And so we see just how literal one can be. And just what good does being that literal in the circumstance at hand do? None. Clearly failing to use good judgment, about when it's appropriate to be so literal and when it isn't, around alligators can be fatal.

This literality is precisely the sort of lapse in good sense to which I referred re: the "hammer" (post #4). I mean, really, just how friggin' stupid does one have to be to not "put two and two" together to get a general sense that wading in the water isn't at all a good idea when there may be alligators in the water too? Why is the extent of reasoning shown in post #4 beyond what is reasonable to expect of two, not one, adults? What makes it unreasonable to expect that two grown people together could not figure out that much when what's at issue is their own and their child's personal safety?

Blue:
I'm sure Disney did nothing to control the presence of alligators in the lagoon. I suspect Disney and its guests viewed the alligators as part of the appeal of the place...sort of like having a limited natural habitat animal viewing/experience area of sorts...not as safe as a zoo, about as safe as one might be in one's backyard, but more safe than being in the wild.

I know I rather enjoy seeing wildlife around me, be it when I'm camping in the mountains, at home in D.C., visiting family in MS, and elsewhere. It's just cool to have critters around and see them "doing their thing" (although I'm not looking to see them eat/kill people). I suspect most folks do. The lagoon at the Disney hotel is no different.

 

[320 Years of History]

Disney shouldn't need gator specific signs.

Why not? Aren't gators sometimes present in that water?

The ones on the road out of the airport are sufficient to inform one that there are alligators in the area.

Unless the signs near the airport mention the Disney lagoon, why would they be sufficient?

See post #4.

 

[320 Years of History]

When I saw the “no swimming please” sign I actually laughed out loud. I have reviewed hundreds of cases involving warning labels and signs, and this sign didn't come close to putting anyone on notice of a possible gator attack.

Come on now. You've been on this site long enough to see how readily folks will extrapolate more meaning than is literally present from the things people write in their posts here. Now you want to say that in the case of a sign that says "no swimming" that people can't, won't or should not extrapolate that to mean "stay the fuck out of the water?"

Give me a break. When the topic is a highly subjective and dynamic one folks will become literal and absolutist, yet the situation and discussion is where there's no chance of there being life or death consequences to doing so? Then, when in a situation like the one at the Disney lagoon, being literal and absolutist is something one does to one's detriment, and you think it perfectly reasonable that they didn't "read between the lines?"

BTW, the theme of this thread isn't whether the parents are culpable or are not culpable, although they and nobody else is responsible for their child. That's true of your and your kids and I and mine. That said, the thread is about whether Disney is rightly to blame for the child's death and the parents' consequent suffering.

See post #4.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Re: post #4....For as long as Disney World has been there in Orlando, FL, no alligator "abductions" have occurred. That means that literally millions and millions of people have been able to read and heed the no swimming signs. Now, in 2016, along come two adults from "wherever" who either can't or refuse to do so, and keep their child from doing so too, and it's suddenly Disney's fault to the extent that Disney needs to settle with them out of court or risk its reputation by going to court to defend itself? I'm sorry, I just don't think so.

That means that literally millions and millions of people have been able to read and heed the no swimming signs.

If the signs had mentioned gators, millions would have read them as well.
The poor child wasn't swimming, was he?

and it's suddenly Disney's fault

Did Disney take actions to insure there were no dangerous gators in their lagoon?

I am somewhat surprised you are tacitly arguing that the parents' glibness, and the consequence of their insouciance, is Disney's fault. I get that you are moved to sympathy for the child and parents' fate. Who isn't sorrowful over that? I am too. But that doesn't mean I think it's Disney's fault that the child was killed.

Red:
And so we see just how literal one can be. And just what good does being that literal in the circumstance at hand do? None. Clearly failing to use good judgment, about when it's appropriate to be so literal and when it isn't, around alligators can be fatal.

This literality is precisely the sort of lapse in good sense to which I referred re: the "hammer" (post #4). I mean, really, just how friggin' stupid does one have to be to not "put two and two" together to get a general sense that wading in the water isn't at all a good idea when there may be alligators in the water too? Why is the extent of reasoning shown in post #4 beyond what is reasonable to expect of two, not one, adults? What makes it unreasonable to expect that two grown people together could not figure out that much when what's at issue is their own and their child's personal safety?

Blue:
I'm sure Disney did nothing to control the presence of alligators in the lagoon. I suspect Disney and its guests viewed the alligators as part of the appeal of the place...sort of like having a limited natural habitat animal viewing/experience area of sorts...not as safe as a zoo, about as safe as one might be in one's backyard, but more safe than being in the wild.

I know I rather enjoy seeing wildlife around me, be it when I'm camping in the mountains, at home in D.C., visiting family in MS, and elsewhere. It's just cool to have critters around and see them "doing their thing" (although I'm not looking to see them eat/kill people). I suspect most folks do. The lagoon at the Disney hotel is no different.

I am somewhat surprised you are tacitly arguing that the parents' glibness, and the consequence of their insouciance, is Disney's fault.

Was this the first ever gator in that water?

Clearly failing to use good judgment, about when it's appropriate to be so literal and when it isn't, around alligators can be fatal.

Are you saying Disney knew there was a chance of a fatal gator attack?

And so we see just how literal one can be. And just what good does being that literal in the circumstance at hand do? None.

Was there a sign warning against wading? Why not?
What was the purpose of the no swimming sign?

I'm sure Disney did nothing to control the presence of alligators in the lagoon.

So they knowingly let a dangerous animal live in the lagoon without a warning sign for guests?
I'm not sure you're helping their legal defense.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Disney shouldn't need gator specific signs.

Why not? Aren't gators sometimes present in that water?

The ones on the road out of the airport are sufficient to inform one that there are alligators in the area.

Unless the signs near the airport mention the Disney lagoon, why would they be sufficient?

See post #4.

The post that didn't show a sign at Disney? What about it helps your case?

 

[320 Years of History]

Re: post #4....For as long as Disney World has been there in Orlando, FL, no alligator "abductions" have occurred. That means that literally millions and millions of people have been able to read and heed the no swimming signs. Now, in 2016, along come two adults from "wherever" who either can't or refuse to do so, and keep their child from doing so too, and it's suddenly Disney's fault to the extent that Disney needs to settle with them out of court or risk its reputation by going to court to defend itself? I'm sorry, I just don't think so.

That means that literally millions and millions of people have been able to read and heed the no swimming signs.

If the signs had mentioned gators, millions would have read them as well.
The poor child wasn't swimming, was he?

and it's suddenly Disney's fault

Did Disney take actions to insure there were no dangerous gators in their lagoon?

I am somewhat surprised you are tacitly arguing that the parents' glibness, and the consequence of their insouciance, is Disney's fault. I get that you are moved to sympathy for the child and parents' fate. Who isn't sorrowful over that? I am too. But that doesn't mean I think it's Disney's fault that the child was killed.

Red:
And so we see just how literal one can be. And just what good does being that literal in the circumstance at hand do? None. Clearly failing to use good judgment, about when it's appropriate to be so literal and when it isn't, around alligators can be fatal.

This literality is precisely the sort of lapse in good sense to which I referred re: the "hammer" (post #4). I mean, really, just how friggin' stupid does one have to be to not "put two and two" together to get a general sense that wading in the water isn't at all a good idea when there may be alligators in the water too? Why is the extent of reasoning shown in post #4 beyond what is reasonable to expect of two, not one, adults? What makes it unreasonable to expect that two grown people together could not figure out that much when what's at issue is their own and their child's personal safety?

Blue:
I'm sure Disney did nothing to control the presence of alligators in the lagoon. I suspect Disney and its guests viewed the alligators as part of the appeal of the place...sort of like having a limited natural habitat animal viewing/experience area of sorts...not as safe as a zoo, about as safe as one might be in one's backyard, but more safe than being in the wild.

I know I rather enjoy seeing wildlife around me, be it when I'm camping in the mountains, at home in D.C., visiting family in MS, and elsewhere. It's just cool to have critters around and see them "doing their thing" (although I'm not looking to see them eat/kill people). I suspect most folks do. The lagoon at the Disney hotel is no different.

I am somewhat surprised you are tacitly arguing that the parents' glibness, and the consequence of their insouciance, is Disney's fault.

Was this the first ever gator in that water?

Clearly failing to use good judgment, about when it's appropriate to be so literal and when it isn't, around alligators can be fatal.

Are you saying Disney knew there was a chance of a fatal gator attack?

And so we see just how literal one can be. And just what good does being that literal in the circumstance at hand do? None.

Was there a sign warning against wading? Why not?
What was the purpose of the no swimming sign?

I'm sure Disney did nothing to control the presence of alligators in the lagoon.

So they knowingly let a dangerous animal live in the lagoon without a warning sign for guests?
I'm not sure you're helping their legal defense.

Okay...just stop. You are responding not with answers or assertions, but with questions.

 

[320 Years of History]

Disney shouldn't need gator specific signs.

Why not? Aren't gators sometimes present in that water?

The ones on the road out of the airport are sufficient to inform one that there are alligators in the area.

Unless the signs near the airport mention the Disney lagoon, why would they be sufficient?

See post #4.

The post that didn't show a sign at Disney? What about it helps your case?

See post #4. The line of reasoning there is a reasonable one to expect any Disney visitor to have applied and arrived at independently of any sign Disney may or may not have installed. That's what's relevant to it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Re: post #4....For as long as Disney World has been there in Orlando, FL, no alligator "abductions" have occurred. That means that literally millions and millions of people have been able to read and heed the no swimming signs. Now, in 2016, along come two adults from "wherever" who either can't or refuse to do so, and keep their child from doing so too, and it's suddenly Disney's fault to the extent that Disney needs to settle with them out of court or risk its reputation by going to court to defend itself? I'm sorry, I just don't think so.

That means that literally millions and millions of people have been able to read and heed the no swimming signs.

If the signs had mentioned gators, millions would have read them as well.
The poor child wasn't swimming, was he?

and it's suddenly Disney's fault

Did Disney take actions to insure there were no dangerous gators in their lagoon?

I am somewhat surprised you are tacitly arguing that the parents' glibness, and the consequence of their insouciance, is Disney's fault. I get that you are moved to sympathy for the child and parents' fate. Who isn't sorrowful over that? I am too. But that doesn't mean I think it's Disney's fault that the child was killed.

Red:
And so we see just how literal one can be. And just what good does being that literal in the circumstance at hand do? None. Clearly failing to use good judgment, about when it's appropriate to be so literal and when it isn't, around alligators can be fatal.

This literality is precisely the sort of lapse in good sense to which I referred re: the "hammer" (post #4). I mean, really, just how friggin' stupid does one have to be to not "put two and two" together to get a general sense that wading in the water isn't at all a good idea when there may be alligators in the water too? Why is the extent of reasoning shown in post #4 beyond what is reasonable to expect of two, not one, adults? What makes it unreasonable to expect that two grown people together could not figure out that much when what's at issue is their own and their child's personal safety?

Blue:
I'm sure Disney did nothing to control the presence of alligators in the lagoon. I suspect Disney and its guests viewed the alligators as part of the appeal of the place...sort of like having a limited natural habitat animal viewing/experience area of sorts...not as safe as a zoo, about as safe as one might be in one's backyard, but more safe than being in the wild.

I know I rather enjoy seeing wildlife around me, be it when I'm camping in the mountains, at home in D.C., visiting family in MS, and elsewhere. It's just cool to have critters around and see them "doing their thing" (although I'm not looking to see them eat/kill people). I suspect most folks do. The lagoon at the Disney hotel is no different.

I am somewhat surprised you are tacitly arguing that the parents' glibness, and the consequence of their insouciance, is Disney's fault.

Was this the first ever gator in that water?

Clearly failing to use good judgment, about when it's appropriate to be so literal and when it isn't, around alligators can be fatal.

Are you saying Disney knew there was a chance of a fatal gator attack?

And so we see just how literal one can be. And just what good does being that literal in the circumstance at hand do? None.

Was there a sign warning against wading? Why not?
What was the purpose of the no swimming sign?

I'm sure Disney did nothing to control the presence of alligators in the lagoon.

So they knowingly let a dangerous animal live in the lagoon without a warning sign for guests?
I'm not sure you're helping their legal defense.

Okay...just stop. You are responding not with answers or assertions, but with questions.

You are responding not with answers or assertions, but with questions.

I'm not supposed to question your assertions? LOL!

They knew there were gators in the water. They regularly took them out. Because they were a danger to their guests. And they kept their guests in the dark.

That's why they are at fault. That's why they're changing the signs. That's why they'll pay, and rightly so.

 

[The Professor]

When I saw the “no swimming please” sign I actually laughed out loud. I have reviewed hundreds of cases involving warning labels and signs, and this sign didn't come close to putting anyone on notice of a possible gator attack.

Come on now. You've been on this site long enough to see how readily folks will extrapolate more meaning than is literally present from the things people write in their posts here. Now you want to say that in the case of a sign that says "no swimming" that people can't, won't or should not extrapolate that to mean "stay the fuck out of the water?"

Give me a break. When the topic is a highly subjective and dynamic one folks will become literal and absolutist, yet the situation and discussion is where there's no chance of there being life or death consequences to doing so? Then, when in a situation like the one at the Disney lagoon, being literal and absolutist is something one does to one's detriment, and you think it perfectly reasonable that they didn't "read between the lines?"

BTW, the theme of this thread isn't whether the parents are culpable or are not culpable, although they and nobody else is responsible for their child. That's true of your and your kids and I and mine. That said, the thread is about whether Disney is rightly to blame for the child's death and the parents' consequent suffering.

See post #4.

Do you really think that a sign that merely says “no swimming please” conveys a warning to parents that their child should not go wading in the water because a gator may pull them under and drown them? Try convincing a jury of that silly notion. Expect to hear laughter.

From a legal standpoint (I have a Juris Doctorate) the sign in no way implies any kind of danger to wading. In fact, it fails to provide an adequate warning to potential swimmers. The sign does not warn of a life-threatening danger and a reasonable person might assume that no such danger exists. It is entirely possible that Disney World discouraged swimming to preserve a certain atmosphere, or that they didn't want to be sued for not having lifeguards in the event a swimmer drowned. If a swimmer had been attacked by a gator, Disney World would have been successfully sued for failure to give proper notice of a dangerous life threatening condition.

The sign does not have the word “danger” or “warning” or any other word that implies a serious threat to wading or swimming. The word “please” is more reasonably associated with a request than a warning or even a demand. There is a reason why Disney World is already replacing the worthless signs with something more appropriate. However, as I previously said, the signs by themselves may not be enough.

I am certain the parents will receive a huge out of court settlement. Disney World lawyers know damn well they cannot possibly win if the case went to trial and they want this whole thing to be over and done with as quickly as possible.

Now I am done with you and this thread.

 

[320 Years of History]

I'm not supposed to question your assertions? LOL!

I'm still awaiting your responses to the questions in the OP. I'm also awaiting your response to the line of reasoning in post #4.

Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.
-- Jean Paul Sartre

Attack the evil that is within yourself, rather than attacking the evil that is in others.
-- Confucius

If you could kick the person in the pants responsible for most of your trouble, you wouldn't sit for a month.
-- Theodore Roosevelt
​

The theme of the OP and the reasoning in post #4 is that one is responsible for what befalls oneself, both the good and bad of it. It isn't someone else's fault for not telling you the sky is about to fall. It's one's own responsibility to look up and figure out on one's own that it's about to fall.