Alligator killed 2-year-old boy in Disney World

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
That might have saved a child's life had it been put up a week or so ago.


I'm not sure that a toddler could read a sign like that and understand it...would need parents to do that and supervise, which didn't happen in the first place.

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR

Ankle of a 2 years old boy is less than 2-3" above ground, and this is clearly not swimming by any definition.


http://kidshealth.org/en/parents/water-safety.html

Quote:
Young children are especially at risk — they can drown in less than 2 inches (6 centimeters) of water. That means drowning can happen where you'd least expect it — the sink, the toilet bowl, fountains, buckets, inflatable pools, or small bodies of standing water around your home, such as ditches filled with rainwater. Always watch children closely when they're in or near any water.


So even if they took the paddling as "not swimming", the mere fact that the kid was in water should have had a parent there, standing in the water supervising.

If they weren't the wording on the sign that the kid couldn't read was irrelevant.
 
Agree with Shannow, our system is broken. Kids do not have monetary value.

I've read ZeeOsix explain how we need to explain exactly why you should not swim so many times I want to drain the oil out of his car in the middle of the night. You sound like a petulant child who has to ask why everytime he is told he can't do something.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
That might have saved a child's life had it been put up a week or so ago.


I'm not sure that a toddler could read a sign like that and understand it...would need parents to do that and supervise, which didn't happen in the first place.


The sign gave the parent zero indication of danger in the water. He probably was supervising the kid, was probably right there close. If the parent saw that new sign, this may not have ever happened.
 
Originally Posted By: bvance554
Agree with Shannow, our system is broken. Kids do not have monetary value.

I've read ZeeOsix explain how we need to explain exactly why you should not swim so many times I want to drain the oil out of his car in the middle of the night. You sound like a petulant child who has to ask why everytime he is told he can't do something.


Lots of people here lack the insight to realize the signs gave absolutely zero warning of any kind of danger. It was a total failure by Disney. Nobody is going to convince me that the "No Swimming" sign was adequate.

If the "No Swimming" signs were adequate, why is Disney now changing them. If they were adequate signs, Disney would dig their heals in and refuse to settle, and would think that if a lawsuit went to court they would have no problem winning, thereby claiming the signage was good and blaming it all on the parent because he had plenty of warning.

What if the kid was totally out of the water but a foot or two next to the water and the gator come out and snatch him? In that case, the "No Swimming" sign isn't even related, yet Disney failed to warn their patrons of possible danger along the shoreline.

I'm due for an oil change ... come on over.
grin.gif
 
What you're suggesting ZeeO is that if anyone were harmed by a wild animal, or any other act of god while visiting the park, then Disney is liable. If struck by lightning, do they need to pay? Attack crows? Are they liable for them too?

Purolator ok? Any warnings I need to be aware of? Do you have a dog? 😁
 
Originally Posted By: bvance554
What you're suggesting ZeeO is that if anyone were harmed by a wild animal, or any other act of god while visiting the park, then Disney is liable. If struck by lightning, do they need to pay? Attack crows? Are they liable for them too?

Purolator ok? Any warnings I need to be aware of? Do you have a dog? 😁

A simple question for you: Someone(relative or friend of anyone ...) falls in your house or anywhere in your property and broke his/her leg(s) who will be liable ?

If you don't know the answer, ask your homeowner insurance agent they know who is liable and they will tell you why you need homeowner insurance.

Do you want to bet a dinner for two: I said Disney will pay the boy's family some amount, no less than $1M, out of court and this case will not go to trial.

If you don't agree with my thinking take the bet. I will donate the winning bet to a charity of your choice.

The latest news:

Quote:
"We are installing signage and temporary barriers at our resort beach locations and are working on permanent, long-term solutions at our beaches," Jacquee Wahler, vice president of Walt Disney resort, said in a statement Friday.

Workers were seen Friday installing fence posts on the beach at Disney where the attack occurred. Signs were added reading "Beware! There are alligators and snakes in the area" with a black silhouette of an alligator and a snake.


http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/disn...florida-n594626

If the old warning sign "No Swimming" was adequate then why a new warning sign is needed ?
 
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
If the old warning sign "No Swimming" was adequate then why a new warning sign is needed ?


because you "have to be seen to be doing something".

How many stupid, knee jerk laws are enacted every year because "something needs to be done"?
 
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Originally Posted By: bvance554
What you're suggesting ZeeO is that if anyone were harmed by a wild animal, or any other act of god while visiting the park, then Disney is liable. If struck by lightning, do they need to pay? Attack crows? Are they liable for them too?

Purolator ok? Any warnings I need to be aware of? Do you have a dog? 😁

A simple question for you: Someone(relative or friend of anyone ...) falls in your house or anywhere in your property and broke his/her leg(s) who will be liable ?

If you don't know the answer, ask your homeowner insurance agent they know who is liable and they will tell you why you need homeowner insurance.

Do you want to bet a dinner for two: I said Disney will pay the boy's family some amount, no less than $1M, out of court and this case will not go to trial.

If you don't agree with my thinking take the bet. I will donate the winning bet to a charity of your choice.

The latest news:

Quote:
"We are installing signage and temporary barriers at our resort beach locations and are working on permanent, long-term solutions at our beaches," Jacquee Wahler, vice president of Walt Disney resort, said in a statement Friday.

Workers were seen Friday installing fence posts on the beach at Disney where the attack occurred. Signs were added reading "Beware! There are alligators and snakes in the area" with a black silhouette of an alligator and a snake.


http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/disn...florida-n594626

If the old warning sign "No Swimming" was adequate then why a new warning sign is needed ?


Ok you're right, I give up. You can't reason with the irrational. No self accountability any more. If you pull into my driveway, get out of your car and bust your [censored] then I better lawyer up. Got it. You're way of thinking is our collective problem. I know that Disney will pay the family. I never said they wouldn't. I said its absurd that they have to pay the family some money to go away. Because thats the America we live in now. There are likely some crack/meth heads out there right now contemplating feeding their kid to an alligator so they can cash in. They sell them for much less than the going rate of a tragedy.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
If the old warning sign "No Swimming" was adequate then why a new warning sign is needed ?


because you "have to be seen to be doing something".

How many stupid, knee jerk laws are enacted every year because "something needs to be done"?


Here in America we enact stupid knee jerk reaction laws all the time. They don't solve any problems, but they make us feel better. Progress.
 
Originally Posted By: bvance554
Ok you're right, I give up. You can't reason with the irrational. No self accountability any more. If you pull into my driveway, get out of your car and bust your [censored] then I better lawyer up. Got it. You're way of thinking is our collective problem. I know that Disney will pay the family. I never said they wouldn't. I said its absurd that they have to pay the family some money to go away. Because thats the America we live in now. There are likely some crack/meth heads out there right now contemplating feeding their kid to an alligator so they can cash in. They sell them for much less than the going rate of a tragedy.

No, It isn't my way of thinking, it is the way we are behaving in this country. When we are graduating more lawyers and MBA than engineers, anything wrong is someone else fault and someone is needed to pay off.

Why we have so many warning labels on a step ladder ? I think you know.
 
Originally Posted By: bvance554
What you're suggesting ZeeO is that if anyone were harmed by a wild animal, or any other act of god while visiting the park, then Disney is liable. If struck by lightning, do they need to pay? Attack crows? Are they liable for them too?

Purolator ok? Any warnings I need to be aware of? Do you have a dog? 😁


If Disney KNOWS there are alligators in the waters surrounding where their patrons are on their property (which they do), then it's their responsibility to warn people of that fact. If they are stupid enough to not warn the public, and then someone gets attacked and killed like this kid, then they will be found liable and sued for sure.

If they want to run their business with blinders on and assume all these alligators are never going to possibly attack, and therefore never warn anybody on their property about it, then Disney getting sued over a situation like this serves them right. Getting sued big time might make them think ahead a little bit more and come up with decent ways to prevent such an incident, and also protect themselves from any liability. Ideally, people/businesses need to think ahead before it takes an unfortunate incident like this to wake them up and make them see possible dangerous situations.

As far as Purolator ... you have been warned many times in the oil filter forum that they can fail in service. So if you still want to keep using them, then the onus is on you. Just like if Disney clearly warned of alligator danger in the waters, but then someone failed to heed the alligator warning, then the onus is on them.

And a sign that simply says "No Swimming" is NOT a warning about possible alligator danger.
 
23 Alligator deaths in Florida since 1973...total.

In 2013, in the age group in question (1-4), Florida had...
* 63 drownings (thus my previous question about how many lines of fine print you would have on your "unambiguous" sign).
* 14 Motor Vehicle Traffic deaths
* 7 suffocations
* 6 pedestrian (other)
* 5 firearm

and so on.

So in terms of the risks to an individual toddler, then surely the signs should have had a heap more lines of possible fatal risk events before they got any where NEAR alligators.

"Do not swim" three words.

"Do not swim
- because aspiration of water may lead to death,
- the infection of a brain eating parasite (*) may lead to death
- blah...blah ... a number of other higher risk deaths
- oh, and you might get taken by a crocodile"
(*) two of them in 2012, one in Florida

Would be ignored as much as the limitations of liability that are written on the back of your theme park ticket...These ARE a legal document, and you accept the risks entering one (same reason you can drive through a carpark without paying...you are in Contract as soon as you park the car).

How many pages of fine print would YOU pay attention to, and how many do you expect a 2 year old to read and understand.

"No Swimming" is a direction.

Just like a red light is a direction, it doesn't have a drop down menu of the risks, including the 18 wheeler that (may well) be bearing down on their green.

It's there, you would have it as it's not a detailed explanation of the risks, it's ambiguous, but you obey it instantly and without question.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
23 Alligator deaths in Florida since 1973...total.


So what's that mean to you? ... to not warn people about dangerous animals when a warning is required just because it's a rare thing to happen.

Originally Posted By: Shannow
How many pages of fine print would YOU pay attention to, and how many do you expect a 2 year old to read and understand.


If the parent saw an warning sign (or other kinds of warnings about alligators in the water) I'm betting he wouldn't have let his kid anywhere near the water.

Originally Posted By: Shannow
"No Swimming" is a direction.


The kid was wading, not swimming ... there wasn't a "No Wading" or a "Stay Out Of The Water" sign.

Disney was negligent.
 
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
I sure hope this stops a ton of Northerners from moving down here!

Seriously, as noted above, gators are a fact of life. I have a small pond, about 1/3 - 1/2 acre that you must watch carefully in case some gator comes by to visit.

Sad day when someone dies, especially a small child at the mercy of his Parents...

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
No worries there from this Northerner.
If we retire somewhere warm, having visited both Florida and Mexico multiple times it'll be Mexico. Much nicer folks who pay much less attention to vacuuming out your wallet.
You couldn't give me a house in the Florida.

OT. Retire somewhere warm ? Hawaii ?


Hawaii is too expensive and too far a flight away from the relatives we'd return to visit a couple of times each year.
The local people are also not especially gracious.
 
Looks like they're putting up a rope fence.
grand-floridian-rope-fence-061716.jpg


Within a week someone will post pics showing people stepping over the rope. They needed a 12 ft wall of old barn tin with a ribbon of concertina on top to convince the idiots they should not pass.
 
The new "STAY AWAY FROM THE WATER" signs also mention alligators, making it clear why you need to keep your kids away from the water.

A generic "No Swimming" sign means merely "Don't bother suing us if your kid drowns" to a lot of people. There is a specific extraordinary hazard here that needs to be specifically mentioned. The old signs didn't even say "Danger- No Swimming", just "No Swimming" with a crossed-out graphic of a guy swimming the Olympic freestyle in open water.
 
Last edited:
So I'm re-thinking my earlier thoughts...

Disney is liable for things that happen on its property.

This won't somehow make a little kid alive again.

I don't believe Disney intentionally created the circumstances, nor did the parents, and yet disaster happened. Disney's sign is not a release of responsibility for either party.
 
Liability or not is a human construct based on signage and the likelihood of corporate payouts.
The real impact is as described by Darwin, in so much as the lesser intelligent among us being less capable of ensuring their genes are passed on and so the overall intelligence of the group, over time, is improved.
 
No one noticed the irony of the picture I posted earlier?
9095804_G.jpg


A 2 rope fence? A toddler can get past that as easy as wiggling behind a car tire in your driveway.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
"No Swimming" is a direction.

You're keep pointing to the "No Swimming" sign, the 2 years old boy didn't swim in the lake he was wading with water at about knee deep.

New sign and new fence around the lake clearly showed that Disney accepted the "No Swimming" signs were not adequate of a warning about the danger of alligator, especially for out of state visitors.

This was clearly Disney fault for the death of a 2 years old boy in their property, and Disney will pay dearly for this accident. No, even if the family fills a lawsuit the case will not go to trial, Disney will settle out of court 100%, no doubt about that.

No way Disney will take bad publicity with this case go to trial, they will loose a lot more if they don't settle with family out of court.

One simple accident: someone is shopping in a grocery store he/she stepped on something that another customer dropped on the floor. The store or someone called 911 and he/she was taken to hospital ... Who is going to pay for all the cost ? The one who dropped stub on the floor or the one got injury or the store(insurance) ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom