Alligator killed 2-year-old boy in Disney World

[DoubleWasp]

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."


1. Kid was not eaten.

2. There are far more human pedators in Disneyland everyday than animal ones.

 

[DoubleWasp]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
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.


If the queen had yarbles, she'd be the queen. What's your point?

Why does any parent, knowing the risk of infection, sand fleas, sharp debris, waterborne parasites, and drowning, allow their child to enter a strange body of water?

That kid is dead because the parents were reckless and stupid.

There is nowhere on Earth that you're going to find signs breaking down the myriad hazards of entering a strange body of water.

It's up to parents to use a little bit of a thing called caution in these circumstances, and not wait for somebody else to tell them all about it.

50 years there have been gators there, and only one set of dumb parents got their child killed by a gator. Obviously it takes some extraordinary stupidity to find yourself in that situation.

 

[DoubleWasp]

Originally Posted By: mk378
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.


So, basically most people are stupid and negligent is what you're saying.

 

[DoubleWasp]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
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) ?


In Florida, there has to be proof that the store had ample time to clean the mess up and did not, otherwise said person has to go after the customer who dropped the product.

 

[Al]

Its interesting that in this thread you can easily see the folks that believe they (or anyone else) are NOT responsible for their own actions. Its someone else's responsibility/fault. In bygone times their decedents would die out. In this day and age that trait isn't a problem (sadly)

 

[Prune_Juice]

Originally Posted By: Al
Its interesting that in this thread you can easily see the folks that believe they (or anyone else) are NOT responsible for their own actions. Its someone else's responsibility/fault. In bygone times their decedents would die out. In this day and age that trait isn't a problem (sadly)



Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
That kid is dead because the parents were reckless and stupid.


Its true.

The parents were responsible.

Not the alligator, NOT DISNEY, the parents.

Simply.. Because.. Care of a two-year-old.. Could be negligent parenting to not have the kid safe somewhere. The gator part is almost secondary. Its tragic, horrific, and disproves that alligators have sharp meat-eating teeth while crocs have flat large teeth for eating plants ? I may have that reversed. Its still really bad and gruesome, seriously. But to disregard posted signage. Come on.

Hilarity ensues.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
It's up to parents to use a little bit of a thing called caution in these circumstances, and not wait for somebody else to tell them all about it.

50 years there have been gators there, and only one set of dumb parents got their child killed by a gator. Obviously it takes some extraordinary stupidity to find yourself in that situation.


Nope, it more along the lines of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. If there were signs alerting the parent that there were alligators in the water do you really think he would let his kid even wade in the water? If he did, then the onus is entirely on him if something happens. He sees a "No Swimming" sign and simply lets his kid just wade out a few feet into the water not knowing that alligators could be in the water there. A 2 year old kid isn't going to actually swim anyway. I can see how a parent would think nothing about simply letting his kid walk in water 6 inches deep. The kid could have been right at the water's edge without even being in the water, and this still could have happened.

If there is no warning of any real danger when Disney knows there are alligators all over the place, then Disney is negligent, and sooner or later something like this will happen. You are liable if there is danger present on your property, and you don't warn or prevent someone from falling into an unexpected situation like this one.

Go to any beach and you'll see kids playing and wading in the water all day long while their parents watch them. This parent could have been very cautious at the time and only allowed his kid to wade out into 6 inches of water while he was 2 feet away, but not knowing of any real danger like alligators coming right up to the shoreline. Plus it was dark or nearly dark (reports said it happened around 9 pm), so that probably prevented him from seeing the gator close to shore.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Al
Its interesting that in this thread you can easily see the folks that believe they (or anyone else) are NOT responsible for their own actions. Its someone else's responsibility/fault. In bygone times their decedents would die out. In this day and age that trait isn't a problem (sadly).


If there was a clear warning given that there were alligators in the water, AND THEN the parent sent his kid out into the water, then YES ... he would have been stupid and deserves a Darwin Award.

If he was never warned or didn't know that there alligators in the water, then it's a whole different story.

 

[Prune_Juice]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Al
Its interesting that in this thread you can easily see the folks that believe they (or anyone else) are NOT responsible for their own actions. Its someone else's responsibility/fault. In bygone times their decedents would die out. In this day and age that trait isn't a problem (sadly).


If there was a clear warning given that there were alligators in the water, AND THEN the parent sent his kid out into the water, then YES ... he would have been stupid and deserves a Darwin Award.

If he was never warned or didn't know that there alligators in the water, then it's a whole different story.


The kid could have drowned. I'm not sure the unfortunate two-year-old was safe even if there were no gators?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Prune_Juice
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Al
Its interesting that in this thread you can easily see the folks that believe they (or anyone else) are NOT responsible for their own actions. Its someone else's responsibility/fault. In bygone times their decedents would die out. In this day and age that trait isn't a problem (sadly).


If there was a clear warning given that there were alligators in the water, AND THEN the parent sent his kid out into the water, then YES ... he would have been stupid and deserves a Darwin Award.

If he was never warned or didn't know that there alligators in the water, then it's a whole different story.


The kid could have drowned. I'm not sure the unfortunate two-year-old was safe even if there were no gators?


The parent could have been holding his hand while wading, and the alligator could still have snagged the kid. You really think a parent would let his 2 year old kid go into water if he really knew there were alligators there, even is he was holding the kid's hand?

Letting a kid go into water unsupervised and resulting in a drowning is way different than a parent watching the kid best he could and having an unexpected alligator come out of the water and snatch the kid right before his eyes.

 

[Prune_Juice]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Prune_Juice
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Al
Its interesting that in this thread you can easily see the folks that believe they (or anyone else) are NOT responsible for their own actions. Its someone else's responsibility/fault. In bygone times their decedents would die out. In this day and age that trait isn't a problem (sadly).


If there was a clear warning given that there were alligators in the water, AND THEN the parent sent his kid out into the water, then YES ... he would have been stupid and deserves a Darwin Award.

If he was never warned or didn't know that there alligators in the water, then it's a whole different story.


The kid could have drowned. I'm not sure the unfortunate two-year-old was safe even if there were no gators?


The parent could have been holding his hand while wading, and the alligator could still have snagged the kid. You really think a parent would let his 2 year old kid go into water if he really knew there were alligators there, even is he was holding the kid's hand?

Letting a kid go into water unsupervised and resulting in a drowning is way different than a parent watching the kid best he could and having an unexpected alligator come out of the water and snatch the kid right before his eyes.


So the parents were present at the time of the alligator attack? They were right there watching? The alligator came up to the man or woman and snatches the infant out of their arms? That's what happened?

Or, was the two year old out of sight of the parents?

Second. ANY of them should have been in the water? In the area? The signs said "Swimming permitted in this area?"

Third question. Was the Disney resort far away from the shoreline? Or, could an alligator just come walking up in there? Where was this alligator, was it known to Disney?

The. Parents. Disobeyed. A. Sign. Now. There. Is. A. Dead. Kid..

 

[Prune_Juice]

If I see a sign that says "Danger: High Voltage," should I sneak in for any reason? Even if there is a $20 bill there? I've found $20s on the side if the road once or twice. They weren't on power lines..

This sign conveys to me that it might not be a good idea. It has big letters, its got red, and a caution triangle.

If I was illiterate and couldn't read, I'm not sure I'd chance it.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Prune_Juice
If I see a sign that says "Danger: High Voltage," should I sneak in for any reason? Even if there is a $20 bill there?


If a sign says "Danger: Alligators In The Water" should you sneak in for any reason? Even if there is a $20 bill floating on the water?

Originally Posted By: Prune_Juice
This sign conveys to me that it might not be a good idea. It has big letters, its got red, and a caution triangle.


Yeah, how about replacing "HIGH VOLTAGE" with "ALLIGATORS IN THE WATER", and show a figure of an alligator dragging someone into the water instead of the electrocution figure.

I almost think Disney didn't use clear signs warning of alligators because it might have scared some people away from coming to the park. Either that, or they are just plain blind to the possible dangers on their property.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
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.


It was only ankle deep a few posts ago, now it's knee deep AND the parents may well have been in the water holding his hand. (ZeeoSix)

(may, might etc.)

Now you and ZeeOSix want the legal definition of swimming, including the various strokes and the Olympic rulebook incorporated into the sign that has to include brain eating bugs...

That's one BIG sign, and again, I'm sure that the toddler couldn't read a word of it.

And while we are hypothesizing that the parents were careful, with the kid in ankle/knee deep water, I'll add that a certain mentaility would reason "only for a few minutes", "hot day, and he needs to cool off", and "I'm keeping my eyes open", while they happily ignore THAT sign.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
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.


It was only ankle deep a few posts ago, now it's knee deep AND the parents may well have been in the water holding his hand. (ZeeoSix)

(may, might etc.)

Now you and ZeeOSix want the legal definition of swimming, including the various strokes and the Olympic rulebook incorporated into the sign that has to include brain eating bugs...

That's one BIG sign, and again, I'm sure that the toddler couldn't read a word of it.

And while we are hypothesizing that the parents were careful, with the kid in ankle/knee deep water, I'll add that a certain mentaility would reason "only for a few minutes", "hot day, and he needs to cool off", and "I'm keeping my eyes open", while they happily ignore THAT sign.


Wading in the water ankle or knee deep (whatever is was) is not swimming. The sign didn't say "STAY OUT OF THE WATER".

 

[qwerty1234]

I know when the young boy fell into at the gorilla exhibit in the zoo the media and everyone else questioned the parenting. In this case very few people blame the parents. "I wonder why that is?" sarcasm off

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Wading in the water ankle or knee deep (whatever is was) is not swimming. The sign didn't say "STAY OUT OF THE WATER".


When you see a "no swimming" sign at a public fountain, do you NOT get the message ?

Even if it's not got the starters blocks, is 1' deep, and therefore incapable of either freestyle of backstroke, the message is there, and virtually universal.

 

[Prune_Juice]

Originally Posted By: qwerty1234
I know when the young boy fell into at the gorilla exhibit in the zoo the media and everyone else questioned the parenting. In this case very few people blame the parents. "I wonder why that is?" sarcasm off

Yeah, I've been wondering the same thing.

You'd thing the parents were walking past there, cradling the two-year-old in there arms and the allidile came charging out of the water and ripped the infant two year old (how big? Can walk? Can't?) From the arms and that was it.

Nope, seems they waded/otherwise went into (intent to swim? Could have swam? Let's apply some things that are commonly said) where a sign was posted. Apparently, the argument was that the sign did not communicate danger.... Rather was inviting them in...

WHAT DID THE SIGN SAY?

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: bvance554
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.
The law regarding the duty of care owed people on your property has been "well settled" for about 75 years. You clearly don't understand the concept, and don't know the law, but you offer up an opinion anyway. Maybe you ought to render opinions for us on how to do brain surgery as well.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Wading in the water ankle or knee deep (whatever is was) is not swimming. The sign didn't say "STAY OUT OF THE WATER".


When you see a "no swimming" sign at a public fountain, do you NOT get the message ?

Even if it's not got the starters blocks, is 1' deep, and therefore incapable of either freestyle of backstroke, the message is there, and virtually universal.


Go look up the definition of "swim" on any official English dictionary (ie, Marriam-Websters, http://www.merriam-webster.com) and show me where walking in water 6 inches deep is called "swimming".