Alligator Takes 2-Year Old near Disney World

[Borgholio]

Is Disney legally required to elaborate on the specific details of why people shouldn't enter the water? Or are they just supposed to put up a "Do not enter / swim" sign and that's all?

[Broomstick]

Legally? Hard to say... while "stay out of the water" signs should be sufficient (although theirs originally said "no swimming" which is open to a different interpretation as already noted) noting specific hazards would make the warning clearer, and use of graphics would certainly help where language barriers might be expected.

For criminal law "stay out" might be sufficient, but if sued in civil court it likely wouldn't be.

[Borgholio]

My thought was that Disney probably only did the minimum legally required so as to not scare off guests, but they morally probably should have done more given the specific nature of the threat. So yeah they can probably be sued for negligence but it would be a civil suit since they're legally in the right.

[Edi]

Given that alligators are part of the natural wildlife of the state and Disney has policies in place for removing them, I do not think they were negligent.

Thing is, a no swimming sign is or should generally be taken as "Get the fuck out of the water already!" because you have to take into account people of all ages and sizes, from children to 7-foot basket ball players. Parents letting a two year old play in the water without one of the parents being right there, right next to the child, are by definition negligent, because it does not take more than a moment for the kid to get into lethal trouble even without the danger of alligators.

Going somewhere foreign (or far enough away as to be foreign, in the case of a country as large as the US) does not remove the duty of due care and diligence from people. If you go somewhere that is markedly different, you are supposed to take care of due diligence and find out what the dangers where you are going are.

For example, someone who lives someplace that is landlocked has the duty to look up basic information about the common dangers of an ocean front location if they go there (such as a vacation at a tropical seaside resort), because even if they have lakes at home and know how to swim, those lakes generally do not have tides and strong currents like an ocean does (unless the body of water is very large to begin with, such as the Great Lakes in the US). Same goes for dangerous wildlife like bears, wolves, cougar, lions, rhinos, elephants, crocodiles, poisonous snakes and yes, alligators.

The greater the potential danger, the greater the duty of due care and diligence, the presence of a holiday resort or location notwithstanding. In this case, the results of carelessness born of ignorance were tragic, but it does not do much to alter the chain of responsibility. The parents shoulder the blame and if they do get anything as a settlement, it will be for what we at my work call "customer service reasons", meaning the company acknowledges no fault, negligence or other wrongdoing but compensates the customer for a small amount in order to keep them and/or not turn it into a knockdown-drag-out-fight. So more or less PR reasons. That's really the only reason for Disney to pay out anything.

It does not lessen the tragedy one bit and the parents and the those company reps assigned to deal with this will be haunted by the event for the rest of their lives, but from the company's corporate perspective, any fallout from this in terms of monetary compensation to lessen the negative PR effect is just a cost of doing business. In other words, does paying compensation gain them more than they lose from the knock-on effects?

[Broomstick]

Going somewhere foreign (or far enough away as to be foreign, in the case of a country as large as the US) does not remove the duty of due care and diligence from people. If you go somewhere that is markedly different, you are supposed to take care of due diligence and find out what the dangers where you are going are.

While in principle I agree with the above in actual practice in the US stupidity is protected. I see it as a flaw in our society that, in many ways, people are so overprotected that they forget that danger exists.

[RogueIce]

It does not lessen the tragedy one bit and the parents and the those company reps assigned to deal with this will be haunted by the event for the rest of their lives, but from the company's corporate perspective, any fallout from this in terms of monetary compensation to lessen the negative PR effect is just a cost of doing business. In other words, does paying compensation gain them more than they lose from the knock-on effects?

Pretty much, because otherwise the headlines write themselves:

DISNEY BLAMES PARENTS FOR CHILD'S DEATH IN COURT CASE

Yeah, they're going to give a settlement while admitting no fault.

[thandeanderson]

The officer's quotation about how they were searching for the boy to bring the father comfort shows how Disney doesn't want to pop the his bubble because the child was most likely eaten, and he doesn't know the alligator would most likely have eaten the child. Also, his attempt at pulling the child from its jaws shows his ignorance because you're supposed to hit it on the nostrils or eyes and because large predators' jaws don't miraculously loosen if you pull at whatever's in their mouth. Even if he doesn't know predators can do that, he should know bulldogs have a strong bite and generalize it to other meat-eaters with large jaws.

[Bedlam]

The officer's quotation about how they were searching for the boy to bring the father comfort shows how Disney doesn't want to pop the his bubble because the child was most likely eaten, and he doesn't know the alligator would most likely have eaten the child. Also, his attempt at pulling the child from its jaws shows his ignorance because you're supposed to hit it on the nostrils or eyes and because large predators' jaws don't miraculously loosen if you pull at whatever's in their mouth. Even if he doesn't know predators can do that, he should know bulldogs have a strong bite and generalize it to other meat-eaters with large jaws.

He might have known much of the above, however, it can be very hard to calmly think the situation through and come up with the best response in the spur of the moment when you can see your child being dragged away by a wild animal.

[Purple]

Going somewhere foreign (or far enough away as to be foreign, in the case of a country as large as the US) does not remove the duty of due care and diligence from people. If you go somewhere that is markedly different, you are supposed to take care of due diligence and find out what the dangers where you are going are.

While in principle I agree with the above in actual practice in the US stupidity is protected. I see it as a flaw in our society that, in many ways, people are so overprotected that they forget that danger exists.

Honestly I think that the burden should always be on the one that has less to lose by acting. And putting up a warning sign is far less of a costly action than loosing ones life to a wild beast any way you measure it.

[Broomstick]

Leaving aside the Disney signs (which could have been more strongly worded) it's an ongoing problem with tourists not heeding signs that are already in place in, say, national parks. Death Valley, for example. Hey, look at that name - DEATH valley. The name itself should tell you something, right? Lots of signs about not going off the road or trail, need for water, etc. And people still go off trail, wander about without water, and so forth with the result a certain number of people DIE in DEATH valley, some of them remarkably close to the road, or lodges or whatever. People fall off cliffs in the Grand Canyon and really, most people who travel there are already familar with gravity. People have jumped into hot springs in Yellowstone despite ample warning signs. Invariably, there is a hue and cry afterward for more warnings, more fences, more safety features.

The world isn't safe. Too many people have forgotten that.

[Purple]

The difference between those two is that in your examples we have natural landmarks where as here we have a corporate administered recreational facility. I have zero problems with the idea that a corporation should be forced to run it self into the ground making sure the people it's charging money from are safe.

[Joun_Lord]

Well that seems foolish. A company should do alot to make sure its customers are safe but there comes a time when its on the consumer to be responsible for their safety. One expects theme parks to have safety harnesses and inspections of equipment, one expects a pizza place to not have glass in the cheese, one expects to buy a car that won't explode in fiery fire if you look at it funny. Those are things where the company takes the safety of its customers in consideration.

But few expect a company to shut down its roller coasters because they can cause some small amount of harm through unforeseen events, to stop selling pizza because its makes people fat, or stop selling cars because they are murder machines. There is some inherent risk in nearly everything and a company cannot survive by making their businesses plastic bubbles of ultra safety.

There comes a point when the consumer has to decide how safe they want. There is some risk in riding a roller coaster, don't ride it. Pizza gives you man bewbs, eat a salad fatty (but salads taste like wet garbage and wet garbage is not very tasty). Cars are super fucking dangerous both for riders, passengers, other riders, bystanders, and pretty much everyone, ride a bike. But bikes are dangerous from wrecks and motor vehicles so walk. But you still have the dangers of motor vehicles plus twisting your ankle or falling down a cracking your skull open so stay home. But homes have carbon monoxide poison plus you get fat without exercise so.......

As Broomstick said, the world ain't safe. And there is only so much someone can do to make it safer.

[Purple]

Well that seems foolish. A company should do alot to make sure its customers are safe but there comes a time when its on the consumer to be responsible for their safety. One expects theme parks to have safety harnesses and inspections of equipment, one expects a pizza place to not have glass in the cheese, one expects to buy a car that won't explode in fiery fire if you look at it funny. Those are things where the company takes the safety of its customers in consideration.

But few expect a company to shut down its roller coasters because they can cause some small amount of harm through unforeseen events, to stop selling pizza because its makes people fat, or stop selling cars because they are murder machines. There is some inherent risk in nearly everything and a company cannot survive by making their businesses plastic bubbles of ultra safety.

I do think that not having man eating mini dinosaurs in your water, or if you already do have them being forced to explicitly announce that falls under the first and not the second paragraph.

[Joun_Lord]

I do think that not having man eating mini dinosaurs in your water, or if you already do have them being forced to explicitly announce that falls under the first and not the second paragraph.

Having signs that says "Yo bitches, we gots lizards with a hunger for human flesh, travelers we weary" is not an unreasonable safety consideration nor is trying to remove the gators from their property when possible. That isn't putting an undue burden on the company so they can create a safer environment for their customers.

But the park wouldn't be safe even so. The only way to make the park safe would be to kill every gator in Florida, drain all the standing water so no drowning, snapping turtles, or snakes and filling the empty location with foam, then probably closing down the park. According to you thats what they need to do and spare no expense and give no thought to the harm it causes the company.

Some of the responsibility needs to be on the customer. Its not unreasonable to expect a customer to do a bit of research about the place they are traveling to, its not unreasonable for customers to not ignore existing signs that say no swimming, its not unreasonable for parents to keep a close eye on their kids. People should be aware of possible dangers and plan accordingly along with having some common fucking sense. If you got to the Grand Canyon you know not to wear roller skates, you go to Yellowstone you should know not to get too close to the boiling hot geysers, and you should know alligators are a problem in Florida. Even if you don't know those things because you lack common sense or just have no clue of the area, a bit of research can help. And its not like the olden times where you had to go to a dank musty library to find information, nearly everyone (save me and the chick from 50 Shades of Grey) have a internet capable phone to google about their area.

That isn't me really blaming the parents of the kid in the case, okay its me partially blaming them because they sound like irresponsible idiots, but I'm also not really blaming Disney either.

Both parties could have done more.

[Elfdart]

So 23 people killed and 383 unprovoked bites, 126 of those requiring no threatment, is the sum total of alligator carnage in Florida since 1948. 15 of the deaths adults and half of those swimming in the water, and 5 of 8 kids were also swimming. This attack was very unlikely to begin with, even if parents in Florida are much more wary with children then those of Nebraska.

You aren't keeping the gators out of any large body of water including swimming pool that isn't fully fenced, and a place like Disney is way too sprawling and integrated with the water to do that. Not in any fashion that would be effective compared to money spent on trapping. This family got very unlucky, I imagine Disney will make changes, but there is not really much to be said or done about it when the gators are so enormously numerous. They are very important to the ecosystem of course.

You live in a city, there's a chance your kid will get killed by a car. You live near a lake, beach or pool, there's a chance your kid could drown. Disney could and probably should have stressed the danger of alligators, but I think some have really overreacted.

We have similar fauna here in Texas, especially with three straight years of spring monsoons and the flooding that comes with them*, and the local authorities put out notices on TV, radio, the internet and door-to-door fliers that alligators, snapping turtles and cottonmouths are a potential hazard, though mosquitoes are by far the worst danger. They caught a 10-foot alligator not half a mile from where I live.



* Lake Worth and the streams connecting to it overflowed to the point that my house was lakefront property. If only I could sell it that way -I'd make almost enough to retire!

[Sea Skimmer]

Around Phily and the Delaware river in general we have a big hazard from the fact that most of the river and creek length of has been bulkheaded, but the bulkheads often do not rise above the normal high tidal water line, and sometimes has a grassed slope down to the edge. So you might think its a normal shoreline, but step into that water and you will find it goes from 6 inches deep to suddenly 10 feet or more deep in the space of about oh, one linear foot out from shore. Some spots do have warning signs for this, though generally only because of additional hazards like sunken pier remains, but most don't because its tens of miles of shoreline involved and part of life.

Disney had millions and millions of people visit for longer then most of us have been alive, obviously the alligator problem is not horrible. However I have seen a lot of stuff creeping out about how Disney has a growing problem with tourists feeding the alligators in some parts of the park, and does have signs up saying not to do this as well as written policies... some workers are claiming the alligators are becoming more numerous because of this. So they will need to do something about that, and maybe now people will listen better.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, the phrase "don't feed the alligators" has taken on a certain ghastly overtone, yes.

[Elfdart]

Feeding the alligators directly? Or indirectly by feeding ducks or dumping trash into the water?

By the way, fences don't really stop alligators:

[Purple]

But the park wouldn't be safe even so. The only way to make the park safe would be to kill every gator in Florida, drain all the standing water so no drowning, snapping turtles, or snakes and filling the empty location with foam, then probably closing down the park. According to you thats what they need to do and spare no expense and give no thought to the harm it causes the company.

According to me you say? Well how about you provide a quote for that?

Either do so or apologize immediately.

[Joun_Lord]

Either do so or apologize immediately.

see

I have zero problems with the idea that a corporation should be forced to run it self into the ground making sure the people it's charging money from are safe.

You say you are fine with a company running itself into the ground in order to make sure customers are safe. You didn't specify just financially.

[Zixinus]

By the way, fences don't really stop alligators:

Regular fences. If you continue the fence with a overhang, you can stop animals that can climb fences in at least one direction. It can stop alligators from coming in but not stop them from coming out. It is standard practice in animal enclosures (with overhangs stopping them from getting out obviously), not just in zoos but shelters too (some dogs can be ridiculous).

[Purple]

Either do so or apologize immediately.

see

I have zero problems with the idea that a corporation should be forced to run it self into the ground making sure the people it's charging money from are safe.

You say you are fine with a company running itself into the ground in order to make sure customers are safe. You didn't specify just financially.

That is not what you said I did. You are taking my quote and extrapolating your own silly ideas. And than trying to justify them as somehow being derived when I in fact did not say what you think I did.

Direct quote of me demanding foam or fuck off.

Frankly I am sick and tired of people making insane interpretations of what I say and than trying to shove those words into my mouth. It's like you quote literally can not handle the #1 rule of adult conversation. When in doubt, assume the other guy is in fact not insane. Is that such a fucking hard thing to do? Apparently for this forum it fucking is.

---

As for what I think they should have done it's simple. What was needed here is a simple decorative fence and signs every 100m or so saying "Dangerous animal will eat you." And if that runs the company into the ground by destroying the attractiveness of their resort than that's fine by me.

[Sea Skimmer]

Feeding the alligators directly? Or indirectly by feeding ducks or dumping trash into the water?

Directly. It appears the gators involved are generally then removed by fish and a game in turn, but the problem anecdotally was on the increase.

By the way, fences don't really stop alligators:

That's why you need some alligator gauge razor wire on top, tourists won't mind it one bit.

I know they can and do dig under them though, which already creates a big limitation since digging in fences greatly increases the cost of installing one.

[Broomstick]

On the other hand, if any corporation has the money for dug-in fences it would be Disney.

[Edi]

As for what I think they should have done it's simple. What was needed here is a simple decorative fence and signs every 100m or so saying "Dangerous animal will eat you." And if that runs the company into the ground by destroying the attractiveness of their resort than that's fine by me.

Then that's what you should have said in the first place instead of assuming people would telepathically pick up on what you really meant behind the face value of your previous quote.

I have zero problems with the idea that a corporation should be forced to run it self into the ground making sure the people it's charging money from are safe.

This here is your original quote, and its meaning in the context when it was uttered is far less clear than the second quite. It does not have the qualifiers the second one does and is in general very badly formulated.

If you thus open yourself up to attack by lampooning your unclear quote with a reducto ad absurdum, the problem was with your communication to begin with and the ridicule of the absurd argument is the easiest way to point it out.