Alligator killed 2-year-old boy in Disney World

Status
Not open for further replies.
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...


Do you know the difference between a Yankee and a [censored] Yankee? lol
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
A sign that just says "No Swimming" is too ambiguous for a place with alligators on the shoreline. The kid wasn't really 'swimming' ... he was wading in 6 inches of water, so technically he wasn't even 'swimming'.

If Disney or anyone else wants to keep people out of the water then they need signs that say WARNING - STAY OUT OF THE WATER - ALLIGATORS ALONG SHORELINE" or something to that effect ... not some ambiguous sign that says "No Swimming".


What's ambiguous about NO SWIMMING ?

Obey the sign, and nothing happens.

If they said "be careful when swimming", then didn't explain the risks, THAT's ambiguous.

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Wait and see ... Disney will be found liable in this case.


Gets back to my previous point on the Hierarchy of controls when risks are present.
Elimination
Substitution
Engineering
Administrative (signs (and the language(s) that they are written in are administrative, and therefore prone to fail)
Protective Equipment.

Building a fence is Engineering controls that work regardless of the ability of a toddler to read the sign that alligators may be lurking.

If (when) they are found liable, it won't be over ambiguity of the wording on the sign.
 
Fencing the shoreline is not a practical solution. It would be ugly and disrupt wildlife.
 
Originally Posted By: Prune_Juice
We need to focus on how the two-year-old got in contact with the alligator.


Ummm ... because he waded out in 6" of water a few feet off the shoreline in an area where there were alligators, and there were no signs telling anyone there could be alligators on the shoreline. Yeah, that actually is the reason why a 2 year old came into contact with an alligator.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
What's ambiguous about NO SWIMMING ?

Obey the sign, and nothing happens.

If they said "be careful when swimming", then didn't explain the risks, THAT's ambiguous.


Wait a minute ... so you're saying a sign that gives MORE warning is more ambiguous. Yeah, makes sense to me.

A sign that just says "No Swimming" is about as ambiguous as it gets, especially if there is danger involved.
 
According to Nightline, "Disney World installing new signs, temporary barriers on beaches in wake of gator attack."
ClLqQggWEAEIfiJ.jpg


I wouldn't be at all surprised if they created a man-made, semi-enclosed beach after this.
 
Originally Posted By: Nick1994
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR


Quote:
Stanford Law Professor Nora Freeman Engstrom said that Disney had a duty to protect visitors from danger and that wording and placement of the signs would be carefully looked at if the case went to trial.

The company could argue that the incident was not foreseeable and that the sign was adequate, she said. But she predicted the case would not go to trial.

"The bottom line is that they have a child whose body was snatched from the parents" as they watched, she said. "I don't think it is the kind of case where you want to be arguing the ... subtle details of law."
So because a lawyer says something, it makes it true?

Remember, lawyers also said OJ Simpson didn't kill his wife. And there's also lawyers on both sides of a trial for a rapist case, one of the lawyers has to be lying right? In order to protect their client. It's about who can lie the best.

It isn't about true or fail. It is about should Disney settle out of court with the boy's parents or go to trial.

How much bad publicity during trial would effect Disney's business ? Are they worth fighting with a lawsuit that a 2 year old died in their theme park ?

You and I don't know squat about civil lawsuit regarding liability of a theme park operator, so that rely on lawyer(s) opinions is more prudent.

Your guess about laws is as good as mine, and we can both be wrong more than 90% of the times.
 
Originally Posted By: JennyHemi
According to Nightline, "Disney World installing new signs, temporary barriers on beaches in wake of gator attack."
ClLqQggWEAEIfiJ.jpg


I wouldn't be at all surprised if they created a man-made, semi-enclosed beach after this.


That might have saved a child's life had it been put up a week or so ago.
 
Originally Posted By: ls1mike
So I have taken my kids to Disney. Good place for the kids. For me? not so much.

I watch them, but not like I do at say Yellowstone or Yosemite.

At Disney you have the reasonable expectation that your kid is generally safe and most certainly not going to be eaten by a wild animal while in an AMUSEMENT PARK. Signs or not.

Yellowstone or the like? You beat your a.. that goes through your mind. It is discussed by every employee non-stop.

Could the parents have done better? I don't know, I wasn't there.

Should Disney have wild animals at their amusement park.

Nope.

Agreed.

If you poll Disney's visitors, they will tell you that they go there because it is a safest place for family fun.

Outside Disney World, you don't want to go near any body of water, but inside Disney World people feel difference.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Prune_Juice
We need to focus on how the two-year-old got in contact with the alligator.


Ummm ... because he waded out in 6" of water a few feet off the shoreline in an area where there were alligators, and there were no signs telling anyone there could be alligators on the shoreline. Yeah, that actually is the reason why a 2 year old came into contact with an alligator.


2-year-old unsupervised? Or was it truly that he was crafty enough to wander away.

As to mk's point, not sure he would be smart enough or crafty enough to bop the gator a few times on the head like this
06.gif
or poke an eye
28.gif


Hmmmmm...
28.gif
28.gif
28.gif


And a Good Yankee is one that goes down south, realizes where he is, and goes home. The [censored] Yankee is the one that stays.
 
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...


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.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
A sign that just says "No Swimming" is too ambiguous for a place with alligators on the shoreline. The kid wasn't really 'swimming' ... he was wading in 6 inches of water, so technically he wasn't even 'swimming'.

If Disney or anyone else wants to keep people out of the water then they need signs that say WARNING - STAY OUT OF THE WATER - ALLIGATORS ALONG SHORELINE" or something to that effect ... not some ambiguous sign that says "No Swimming".

Wait and see ... Disney will be found liable in this case.

No, Disney will not allow this case go to trial therefore they will not be found liable. They will settle out of court with the kid's parents, if the settlement is less than $10M.

Disney will not take a risk of bad publicity with this case if it goes to trial. Will or loose they will suffer bad publicity and this may cause them to loose billions in revenue.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Gets back to my previous point on the Hierarchy of controls when risks are present.
Elimination
Substitution
Engineering
Administrative (signs (and the language(s) that they are written in are administrative, and therefore prone to fail)
Protective Equipment.

Building a fence is Engineering controls that work regardless of the ability of a toddler to read the sign that alligators may be lurking.

If (when) they are found liable, it won't be over ambiguity of the wording on the sign.

Originally Posted By: Prune_Juice
We need to focus on how the two-year-old got in contact with the alligator.

And aren't gators indigenous to Florida, as are cockroaches?

Disney is parent company of ABC, ABC news has no reason to talk negatively about this accident in Disney World.

They said very clear "Lane was in ankle deep water right on the shore".

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

The boy's family may or may not fill a lawsuit, but I can bet dinner for two that this case will never go to trial
 
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
Which part of "no swimming" is so ambiguous?


It is ambiguous. It gives no indication whatsoever that there might be real danger like alligators in the water. Not everyone that visits Florida is from the area and may have no clue alligators could be just feet off the shoreline, mostly at the theme park like Disney.

Why do you think Disney is already putting up better warning signs? ... they obviously saw their flaw. Their action of instantly changing signs is an indication that they know signage was lacking - that won't look good in court if it goes that far.

Unfortunately, it takes a tragedy to open people's eyes to the obvious. Just like the gorilla incident, there was some negligence on the part of the zoo for having a fence that a 3 year old could get through. Must have been one secure fence if it couldn't hold back a 3 year old . Guess what, the zoo beefed up the fence a day or two after that incident.


No, it's a sign that people were too stupid for the first sign.



This.

But it's really no surprise. People think that THEY are special and the exception to any rule. Of course when it all goes horribly wrong, it's always the fault of somebody else..
 
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
A sign that just says "No Swimming" is too ambiguous for a place with alligators on the shoreline. The kid wasn't really 'swimming' ... he was wading in 6 inches of water, so technically he wasn't even 'swimming'.

If Disney or anyone else wants to keep people out of the water then they need signs that say WARNING - STAY OUT OF THE WATER - ALLIGATORS ALONG SHORELINE" or something to that effect ... not some ambiguous sign that says "No Swimming".

Wait and see ... Disney will be found liable in this case.

No, Disney will not allow this case go to trial therefore they will not be found liable. They will settle out of court with the kid's parents, if the settlement is less than $10M.

Disney will not take a risk of bad publicity with this case if it goes to trial. Will or loose they will suffer bad publicity and this may cause them to loose billions in revenue.


If it went to trial, Disney would lose. I already mentioned they would probably settle out of court to keep the publicity way down. Either way, Disney will not walk away without paying some big settlement on this one.
 
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 ?
 
Originally Posted By: 02SE
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp

No, it's a sign that people were too stupid for the first sign.

This.

But it's really no surprise. People think that THEY are special and the exception to any rule. Of course when it all goes horribly wrong, it's always the fault of somebody else..

What do you think of the new Disney advertising slogan on major new papers and magazines: "Happiest on Earth, but you and/or your children my be eaten alive by alligator."
 
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Originally Posted By: 02SE
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp

No, it's a sign that people were too stupid for the first sign.

This.

But it's really no surprise. People think that THEY are special and the exception to any rule. Of course when it all goes horribly wrong, it's always the fault of somebody else..

What do you think of the new Disney advertising slogan on major new papers and magazines: "Happiest on Earth, but you and/or your children my be eaten alive by alligator."


I'd be inclined to go with something simpler: "Disneyland, fun for the whole Family, unless you're too stupid to obey signs".
 
Originally Posted By: 02SE
I'd be inclined to go with something simpler: "Disneyland, fun for the whole Family, unless you're too stupid to obey signs".


Or maybe something like: "Disneyland, we use ambiguous signs to hide known dangers from the whole family."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top