Alligator dragged 2 year old into 7 seas lagoon

[Dizneefamily+4]

Isn't most shoreline public? I wasn't aware the ocean could be private. For example, Atlantis has a private beach, but that privacy ends at the water.

Yes, the privacy ends at the water, but there are still dangers and hazards that can happen on shore at that private beach. Alligators have been found in the Atlantic Ocean and they can come up on shore. Jellyfish can sting on shore. Sharks can attack in the surf and some even can come up on shore.

 

[declansdad]

I guess you do what makes you feel comfortable. I would not be comfortable at all staying at either place. I need to unwind and relax and my anxiety level would be thru the roof staying at either place. Sorry, just my honest opinion.

Nothing wrong with your opinion, just not understanding the anxiety around the bungalows.

 

[OhMari]

I understand your thoughts about staying in a tent (wouldn't bother me though) but I don't see why you would be hesitant to stay in a bungalow?

I love water-I actually swim laps all summer, but I do not think I would enjoy them at all. My parents own a nice house on a lake in Wisconsin and I never go. I cannot stand sitting around all day looking at the water. It is almost as bad as saying I am not a Packer Fan and I live in Wisconsin.

 

[declansdad]

I love water-I actually swim laps all summer, but I do not think I would enjoy them at all. My parents own a nice house on a lake in Wisconsin and I never go. I cannot stand sitting around all day looking at the water. It is almost as bad as saying I am not a Packer Fan and I live in Wisconsin.

LOL, that's like me being in Canada and saying Tim Horton's is not my favourite coffee.

I thought your aversion to the bungalows was based on the gators, thank for the clarification.

 

[Magpie]

I guess you do what makes you feel comfortable. I would not be comfortable at all staying at either place. I need to unwind and relax and my anxiety level would be thru the roof staying at either place. Sorry, just my honest opinion.

Hey, we're entitled to our feelings, rational or irrational. And no one's ever going to force you to stay in either place.

I'm irrationally opposed to deep frying. All that hot fat spitting everywhere. Scares the living you-know-what out of me, and I won't have a deep fryer in my house. I tell the kids, "If you want fried food, you can go to a restaurant and get it!"

Why? Because a friend of mine in high school had a house fire sparked by her dad leaving the deep fryer on when he went out. No one was hurt, but it made a deep impression on me. So, no deep fryers.

Embrace your irrationality! It's perfectly okay.

The only time it becomes a problem is when we start expecting other people to accommodate us. Say, if I was saying that no one should have deep fryers in their homes. Or if you were to say that Disney should stop allowing people to tent camp, or tear down the bungalows. We all do what makes us comfortable, but we also have to respect that other people may have different comfort levels.

 

[kellyg403]

I grew up at Cure Beach and then when I got older was stationed at Lejeune so I guess I just got use to alligator awareness. It wasn't uncommon to see them out basking on the rocks during the day, or even floating around in the brackish inlets at the new river. We would fish and shrimp with in 100 feet of them and they'd never bother us. You would occasionally see them grab a duck or squirrel or something, I even heard quite often of a family dog or cat that got eaten, but they'd never come after humans.

When the wife and I went to WDW in April I was looking everywhere for them and was amazed at how good of a job Disney did at keeping them off property. It's not like they try to hide, they're usually out in plain sight catching the most sun they can, so I knew Disney had to be doing something to keep the alligator population down (it's kind of prime alligator real estate).

You make a valid point. Unless you are exposed to something routinely, you never fully understand the dangers of it. You can read about it and study it all you want, but you'll never truly understand it with out exposure.

What happened is truly a tragic accident in which Disney nor the parents are at fault. But you'll never get people who are not familiar with gators to understand that.

I am in Lejeune. My husband and I are USMC transplants from other areas, but have lived here since the 90's. We routinely walk in a park near us that you are probably familiar with. Its adjacent to the New River. There is an alligator that has lived in the area since I can remember. Larger one. The only thing I can say is the sign there says do not feed wildlife (not just alligators because we do have black bears in the area as well) and no swimming. While everyone who lives here knows of the alligator and that he is spotted occasionally, a visitor would not know there is an alligator living in there. Til you see him! Between the venomous snakes and the alligator I never am looking or paying attention to bears. I have knowledge in staying away from them but no knowledge on how to protect myself if I needed too. I come from Washington DC. Its a city. I don't have a lot of exposure, a lot of fear for sure. I don't swim near piers where the sharks are going after the bait.

Its a terrible tragedy of two worlds colliding. I honestly think you can put as many signs out as possible telling people NOT to feed the wildlife and there will always be the ones who think either the rules don't apply to them or just this once won't hurt.

 

[cabanafrau]

A broken ANALOG clock.

Pretty soon nobody is going to understand what the hell we're talking about when saying that.

I think you are slyly attempting to imply I am old. How rude!

I am NOT old! Even my broken digital clock is right twice a day -- it flashes 12:00 on my VCR and is right at noon and midnight. There, you see, I am young enough to understand how old-timey adages apply to those of us in the digital age.

 

[mom2rtk]

It is very possible they won't sue. Not everybody does - it's assumed as a matter of course, but it's far from true. Maybe they don't need or want money; certainly money won't ease their unimaginable loss. They for damn sure don't need the pain and stress continuing to be in the public eye will bring. Maybe, as people of faith (which I believe they have been reported to be) they would rather turn their focus elsewhere and rely on the love and support of their family and community and begin their life-long journey of grieving in privacy.

On a slightly different note, I heard a news report today that it was "unlikely" charges would be brought against the parents. The very idea goes from the ridiculous to the sublime...

I can't even fathom that they would not sue. Or that they wouldn't have representatives talk to Disney about some sort of settlement.

Of course money will not bring their child back. Of course some people are well off financially. But they deserve the time and space to grieve without any financial worries about making house payments and paying bills. A settlement could give them the time and space they need to regroup. It could provide the best counseling. It could provide help around the house while they fall apart. Even if they didn't need the money, they could do some good works in the name of their son.

I hope they sue. And I hope they get a big fat settlement. And I'm one who thinks the lawyers and frivolous lawsuits are a terrible drain on our country.

 

[Sanchez]

I was more interested in how, if at all, the strict liability tort might apply in this situation. He addressed the wild animal and property perspective but I did not see mention of the strict liability issue in the article.

I'm not even sure it would apply, which is why I asked for any legal professionals who may understand the specifics of strict liability much better than I to help me understand it. It appears that strict liability would not apply, but I had the same question when the Cincinnati Zoo event happened as many states have protected their zoos from strict liability claims. It's an interesting and complicated legal term that I was hoping to gain a better understanding of.

I cited this case earlier in the thread and it appears that the author of the article cited by someone else relied on it.

Take a look at the Florida Court of Appeals case of Palumbo v. Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission.http://www.leagle.com/decision/1986839487So2d352_1752/PALUMBO v. GAME & FRESH WATER FISH COM'N

From the case:

"The law of Florida does not require the owner or possessor of land to anticipate the presence of or to guard an invitee or trespasser against harm from wild animals unless one of two conditions exists: the animal has been reduced to possession, or the animal is not indigenous to the locality but has been introduced onto the premises."

This order is worth a read as well as it addresses duty to warn and other principles. It also addresses Florida's position on strict liability for wild animals. http://www.onpointnews.com/docs/zoo_MSJCA.pdf

"Florida imposes strict liability on the owners and keepers of wild animals. Isaacs v. Powell, 267 So. 2d 864, 867 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1962). However, Florida limits strict liability by adopting the position of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (“Restatement”), which distinguishes between damages that result from the inherently dangerous propensities of animals and those that are incident to the presence of the animal. Restatement (Second) of Torts, cmt e. See Scorza v. Martinez, 683 So. 2d 1115, 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts cmt. d in a claim for damages as a result of injuries inflicted by a monkey)."

Based on this, I think the analysis is:

1. Florida imposes strict liability on OWNERS and KEEPERS of wild animals (Disney does not own or keep the alligators);
2. A Landowner is not required to anticipate the presence of or guard an INVITEE against harm from wild animals unless a) the Landowner possesses the wild animal or b) the wild animal is not indigenous to the locality but has been introduced onto the premises (Neither applies to Disney);
3. There may be a duty to warn, but not when the condition is obvious. In any event, in Florida a plaintiff must demonstrate that a warning would have prevented the injury. (This one is a bit murky but hard to believe that the plaintiff could meet this burden. Nevertheless, a question of fact would get this to a jury);
4. Attractive nuisance does not apply here. Attractive nuisance related to a defect in the condition of the property and not wild animals.

 

[Clifton Tesh]

I am in Lejeune. My husband and I are USMC transplants from other areas, but have lived here since the 90's. We routinely walk in a park near us that you are probably familiar with. Its adjacent to the New River. There is an alligator that has lived in the area since I can remember. Larger one. The only thing I can say is the sign there says do not feed wildlife (not just alligators because we do have black bears in the area as well) and no swimming. While everyone who lives here knows of the alligator and that he is spotted occasionally, a visitor would not know there is an alligator living in there. Til you see him! Between the venomous snakes and the alligator I never am looking or paying attention to bears. I have knowledge in staying away from them but no knowledge on how to protect myself if I needed too. I come from Washington DC. Its a city. I don't have a lot of exposure, a lot of fear for sure. I don't swim near piers where the sharks are going after the bait.

Its a terrible tragedy of two worlds colliding. I honestly think you can put as many signs out as possible telling people NOT to feed the wildlife and there will always be the ones who think either the rules don't apply to them or just this once won't hurt.

First and foremost, Semper Fi!

We use to get put on alligator watch down at the H1 Marina. This was to protect the alligators from people, not the other way around. We were to walk the shore line and look for alligators. If any were spotted we were to radio it in to woulwild life control and then follow the gator as long as we could out until wild live life control got there. They would then tranquilizer, tag, and release the alligator away from where people would be, but in the same general area.

We would also report or detain anyone caught feeding the wild life. We could only detain military, not civilians. We would report civilians to the Onslow county sheriff and they would handle it accordingly.

I remember our briefing before gator watch:

"You can not and will not kill the gators, I do not care if he's eating PFC Smith for lunch. The gators are endangered, we have hundreds of thousands of PFCs.

If you see a gator, you follow it like it's a chick at the club and you're trying to get it's number. You radio me on channel 32 and I will come to you and get the gator. If the gator swims off, do not swim after it! There's freaking gators in that water and they will eat you!"

So, if you're ever down at H1, don't get in the water! There's freaking gators in there and they will eat you!

 

[bcla]

First and foremost, Semper Fi!

We use to get put on alligator watch down at the H1 Marina. This was to protect the alligators from people, not the other way around. We were to walk the shore line and look for alligators. If any were spotted we were to radio it in to woulwild life control and then follow the gator as long as we could out until wild live life control got there. They would then tranquilizer, tag, and release the alligator away from where people would be, but in the same general area.

We would also report or detain anyone caught feeding the wild life. We could only detain military, not civilians. We would report civilians to the Onslow county sheriff and they would handle it accordingly.

I remember our briefing before gator watch:

"You can not and will not kill the gators, I do not care if he's eating PFC Smith for lunch. The gators are endangered, we have hundreds of thousands of PFCs.

If you see a gator, you follow it like it's a chick at the club and you're trying to get it's number. You radio me on channel 32 and I will come to you and get the gator. If the gator swims off, do not swim after it! There's freaking gators in that water and they will eat you!"

So, if you're ever down at H1, don't get in the water! There's freaking gators in there and they will eat you!

This must have been a while ago. The American alligator was removed from the federal endangered species list in the late 80s. The recovery is a big success story. It helps that they lay a lot of eggs, unlike something like a large mammal that breeds one at a time.

 

[Magpie]

I can't even fathom that they would not sue. Or that they wouldn't have representatives talk to Disney about some sort of settlement.

Of course money will not bring their child back. Of course some people are well off financially. But they deserve the time and space to grieve without any financial worries about making house payments and paying bills. A settlement could give them the time and space they need to regroup. It could provide the best counseling. It could provide help around the house while they fall apart. Even if they didn't need the money, they could do some good works in the name of their son.

I hope they sue. And I hope they get a big fat settlement. And I'm one who thinks the lawyers and frivolous lawsuits are a terrible drain on our country.

Don't lawsuits take a long time, and require a lot of effort on everyone's parts, including the plaintiffs? I don't see how this would give them the "time and space they need to regroup".

My mum was hit by a car, while crossing the road at a legal intersection. My mum needed some physical therapy to recover, and her insurance company sued the driver's insurance company. Which meant several years of my mum having to testify in court. I remember my mother being really shaken, when the driver's insurance company's lawyer would do things like insinuate that she was a lesbian (no, I don't know how that was supposed to be relevant... I suspect he was trying to suggest she was suicidal or something). Or suggest that she threw herself in front of the car. Calling into question her character and sanity and everything else.

In the end my mum won. But it was brutal.

I can't imagine how much worse it'd be for these parents. Just look at the people on these boards ready to question their culpability! In court it'd be a thousand times more vicious.

Maybe it's just because I'm Canadian, but I wouldn't sue unless the circumstances left me no other choice.

 

[mom2rtk]

Don't lawsuits take a long time, and require a lot of effort on everyone's parts, including the plaintiffs? I don't see how this would give them the "time and space they need to regroup".

My mum was hit by a car, while crossing the road at a legal intersection. My mum needed some physical therapy to recover, and her insurance company sued the driver's insurance company. Which meant several years of my mum having to testify in court. I remember my mother being really shaken, when the driver's insurance company's lawyer would do things like insinuate that she was a lesbian (no, I don't know how that was supposed to be relevant... I suspect he was trying to suggest she was suicidal or something). Or suggest that she threw herself in front of the car. Calling into question her character and sanity and everything else.

In the end my mum won. But it was brutal.

I can't imagine how much worse it'd be for these parents. Just look at the people on these boards ready to question their culpability! In court it'd be a thousand times more vicious.

Maybe it's just because I'm Canadian, but I wouldn't sue unless the circumstances left me no other choice.

Not having been involved in a lawsuit, I couldn't say. But I bet they could dispose of this one fairly quickly if both parties were so inclined.

Maybe they have money in savings, and they use that savings up taking a leave of absence from jobs to regroup. Don't they need to build that savings up again?

 

[Clifton Tesh]

This must have been a while ago. The American alligator was removed from the federal endangered species list in the late 80s. The recovery is a big success story. It helps that they lay a lot of eggs, unlike something like a large mammal that breeds one at a time.

It was 15 years ago. Not too long ago, but not a short time either. NC still had them listed as a threatened species in 2014. I'm not sure about now. I pretty much live at the zoo and make sure I visit them each time I go. Alligators are one of the main reasons I got into herpetology. They really fascinate me.

ETA: Still threatened in NC.
http://www.ncwildlife.org/Conserving/Species.aspx#5528112-reptiles

 

[nugov2]

I can't even fathom that they would not sue. Or that they wouldn't have representatives talk to Disney about some sort of settlement.

Of course money will not bring their child back. Of course some people are well off financially. But they deserve the time and space to grieve without any financial worries about making house payments and paying bills. A settlement could give them the time and space they need to regroup. It could provide the best counseling. It could provide help around the house while they fall apart. Even if they didn't need the money, they could do some good works in the name of their son.

I hope they sue. And I hope they get a big fat settlement. And I'm one who thinks the lawyers and frivolous lawsuits are a terrible drain on our country.

I agree, but honestly I truly believe they don't have to. While there have been a lot of negative comments against the parents they are nothing compared to what has been said about Disney failing to properly warn the guests about this being a possibility. Disney doesn't want this case to see a courtroom, they will settle for a big chunk of money....I'd say a minimum of 10 million with a nondisclosure in there and no admission to wrong doing on Disney's part. I think this would be horrible PR for Disney to have to be taken to court by this family. Every local news agency is definitely skewing towards disney was negligent from what I have seen. I can't imagine the outrage if they are forced to take Disney to court. It will be a media poop storm.

 

[gwynne]

Don't lawsuits take a long time, and require a lot of effort on everyone's parts, including the plaintiffs? I don't see how this would give them the "time and space they need to regroup".

My mum was hit by a car, while crossing the road at a legal intersection. My mum needed some physical therapy to recover, and her insurance company sued the driver's insurance company. Which meant several years of my mum having to testify in court. I remember my mother being really shaken, when the driver's insurance company's lawyer would do things like insinuate that she was a lesbian (no, I don't know how that was supposed to be relevant... I suspect he was trying to suggest she was suicidal or something). Or suggest that she threw herself in front of the car. Calling into question her character and sanity and everything else.

In the end my mum won. But it was brutal.

I can't imagine how much worse it'd be for these parents. Just look at the people on these boards ready to question their culpability! In court it'd be a thousand times more vicious.

Maybe it's just because I'm Canadian, but I wouldn't sue unless the circumstances left me no other choice.

My best guess is that any suit filed by the parents will be quietly and fairly quickly settled.

 

[bcla]

Hey, we're entitled to our feelings, rational or irrational. And no one's ever going to force you to stay in either place.

I used to have an irrational fear of cats and nesting birds. The cats were after I saw a classmate whose palm was clawed by one. He probably deserved it though. The birds were because a teacher told our class about a bird that attacked someone near the nest. These fears were irrational, but I was young.

 

[mom2rtk]

I agree, but honestly I truly believe they don't have to. While there have been a lot of negative comments against the parents they are nothing compared to what has been said about Disney failing to properly warn the guests about this being a possibility. Disney doesn't want this case to see a courtroom, they will settle for a big chunk of money....I'd say a minimum of 10 million with a nondisclosure in there and no admission to wrong doing on Disney's part. I think this would be horrible PR for Disney to have to be taken to court by this family. Every local news agency is definitely skewing towards disney was negligent from what I have seen. I can't imagine the outrage if they are forced to take Disney to court. It will be a media poop storm.

Yep. Totally agree. And that's my point. I think they will have cash to help them through the financial hit of the trying days ahead. And I have no issue with that.

No trial needed. Both sides will want this to go away quickly and quietly.

 

[ZephyrHawk]

Looks like, in addition to newer and more specific warning signs, a fence is going up around the Seven Seas Lagoon. Personally, I think that's a bit of overkill. And an eyesore. Ah, well.

 

[nugov2]

Yep. Totally agree. And that's my point. I think they will have cash to help them through the financial hit of the trying days ahead. And I have no issue with that.

No trial needed. Both sides will want this to go away quickly and quietly.

I'm not really into lawsuits, like the gorilla incident should not lead to a lawsuit...this to me the family deserves compensation. It will only make a difference in as you said alleviating the pressure to work or worry about day to day tasks that they can now hire others to do for several years so they have a chance to heal themselves and their family as best as they can.