Family of Boy Killed by Gator Will Not Sue

[Accident]

I hope that foundation started with a very generous seed.

 

[Funholiday]

We have to remember too, these were people staying at the Grand Floridian. Fair assumption that they could afford the things like burial or time off work to grieve. A decision not to sue may have been made easier because they were already financially in good position. If I was in risk management for Disney, I would attempt to do whatever I could for them to meet their needs to resolve this with Disney, whether it be a settlement or a foundation. A lawsuit would be a PR nightmare.

I have a problem though with some comments that any money received in settlements from incidents resulting in a death is blood money and a family should feel guilty about receiving it. Paying a settlement/lawsuits is the only legal way we have to resolve disputes in this country. If the family thought Disney was careless in the situation they can't ask a court for anything but money in order to make their point. You cannot put corporations in jail. When corporations make decisions that recklessly end peoples lives, settlements or lawsuits are the only way to get them to change their actions because it affects their bottom line. (By the way I am not saying Disney actually was negligent here, but I think the evidence of gators on shore we have seen could have been used by the family to show that they knew or should have known this was at least a possibility)

 

[cavepig]

The foundation was started not too long after the tragedy, It was in our local news, it's not new. Maybe part of a settlement went towards it, but it wasn't to start it as I doubt a settlement came within one week of the accident.

 

[whiporee]

In strict layman's interpretation of case law, Florida law holds that unless you negligently introduced the animal into the circumstance, property owners are not liable for the things animals do. The idea is that wild animals are not owned by anyone and by nature are unpredictable, and therefore you can't assign blame to a property owner for the animal's actions. There are exceptions, but the ruling seems pretty straightforward.

From the ruling: 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.

It's based on the Roman idea of Ferae Naturae, which I only wrote to sound smart You can argue whether WDW had a moral obligation to do more about alligators, even if they knew about them, but it's very difficult to argue they had a legal obligation to do anything more than they did.

I've no doubt Disney settled to make it go away, but I think it would have been an interesting battle had both sides decided to fight.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

We have to remember too, these were people staying at the Grand Floridian. Fair assumption that they could afford the things like burial or time off work to grieve. A decision not to sue may have been made easier because they were already financially in good position. If I was in risk management for Disney, I would attempt to do whatever I could for them to meet their needs to resolve this with Disney, whether it be a settlement or a foundation. A lawsuit would be a PR nightmare.

I have a problem though with some comments that any money received in settlements from incidents resulting in a death is blood money and a family should feel guilty about receiving it. Paying a settlement/lawsuits is the only legal way we have to resolve disputes in this country. If the family thought Disney was careless in the situation they can't ask a court for anything but money in order to make their point. You cannot put corporations in jail. When corporations make decisions that recklessly end peoples lives, settlements or lawsuits are the only way to get them to change their actions because it affects their bottom line. (By the way I am not saying Disney actually was negligent here, but I think the evidence of gators on shore we have seen could have been used by the family to show that they knew or should have known this was at least a possibility)

It would be a mistake to assume a reservation at the grand Floridian equals wealth...that is often not the case.

 

[goingthedistance]

In strict layman's interpretation of case law, Florida law holds that unless you negligently introduced the animal into the circumstance, property owners are not liable for the things animals do. The idea is that wild animals are not owned by anyone and by nature are unpredictable, and therefore you can't assign blame to a property owner for the animal's actions. There are exceptions, but the ruling seems pretty straightforward.

From the ruling: 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.

It's based on the Roman idea of Ferae Naturae, which I only wrote to sound smart You can argue whether WDW had a moral obligation to do more about alligators, even if they knew about them, but it's very difficult to argue they had a legal obligation to do anything more than they did.

I've no doubt Disney settled to make it go away, but I think it would have been an interesting battle had both sides decided to fight.

One of the best posts I have seen on the alligator situation. I am sure the family and/or the family's attorneys know this FL case law by now. Any legal action would have been long, expensive, and dragged out with Disney ultimately "winning" because of this case law. It was in Disney's best interest to settle quickly and quietly to avoid the negative publicity, and I am certain the settlement would have included a strong non-disclosure agreement.

 

[MinnieSweetheart]

One of the best posts I have seen on the alligator situation. I am sure the family and/or the family's attorneys know this FL case law by now. Any legal action would have been long, expensive, and dragged out with Disney ultimately "winning" because of this case law. It was in Disney's best interest to settle quickly and quietly to avoid the negative publicity, and I am certain the settlement would have included a strong non-disclosure agreement.

Yes I agree. Not to mention that apparently Florida is a partial fault state, so a case would end with a judge or jury determining how much of a role the parents had in their own child's death vs. how much was Disney.

There is no amount of money worth the state deciding that I'm "X%" responsible for the death of my child.

 

[leonb]

I listened to a podcast today with Lee Cockerell former WDW executive. He said in all of his years working for WDW an alligator attack like that never crossed his mind that it could've happened. Those things Disney just doesn't think about because they aren't common occurrences and are so very rare. He thinks Disney handled it incredibly well and the fencing is now necessary. I just thought that was interesting from someone who had experience within the Disney company.

Is there a link available for this? I would like to listen to it.
Thanks,
LeonB

 

[rteetz]

Is there a link available for this? I would like to listen to it.
Thanks,
LeonB

I'd have to look but if you look up Walt Disney world podcasts or search lee Cockerell you'll find it easy.

 

[leonb]

I'd have to look but if you look up Walt Disney world podcasts or search lee Cockerell you'll find it easy.

I think I just found it. Thanks!

 

[jlwhitney]

I am glad they are not suing. I never expected them too, they way they responded from the beginning showed their true character. They wanted privacy and out of the media. If they sued it would drag it out into the media. I pray they can heal and move forward.

 

[mcjaco]

In strict layman's interpretation of case law, Florida law holds that unless you negligently introduced the animal into the circumstance, property owners are not liable for the things animals do. The idea is that wild animals are not owned by anyone and by nature are unpredictable, and therefore you can't assign blame to a property owner for the animal's actions. There are exceptions, but the ruling seems pretty straightforward.

From the ruling: 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.

It's based on the Roman idea of Ferae Naturae, which I only wrote to sound smart You can argue whether WDW had a moral obligation to do more about alligators, even if they knew about them, but it's very difficult to argue they had a legal obligation to do anything more than they did.

I've no doubt Disney settled to make it go away, but I think it would have been an interesting battle had both sides decided to fight.

Excellent points. As I said when this story broke, I had a feeling this one wouldn't go anywhere. There was too much legal basis in Disney's favor.

That being said, the family stated that Disney was fantastic through the whole ordeal. I'm sure there was some sort of settlement set up (monetary or not), and good karma all around.

 

[LAX]

In strict layman's interpretation of case law, Florida law holds that unless you negligently introduced the animal into the circumstance, property owners are not liable for the things animals do. The idea is that wild animals are not owned by anyone and by nature are unpredictable, and therefore you can't assign blame to a property owner for the animal's actions. There are exceptions, but the ruling seems pretty straightforward.

From the ruling: 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.

It's based on the Roman idea of Ferae Naturae, which I only wrote to sound smart You can argue whether WDW had a moral obligation to do more about alligators, even if they knew about them, but it's very difficult to argue they had a legal obligation to do anything more than they did.

I've no doubt Disney settled to make it go away, but I think it would have been an interesting battle had both sides decided to fight.

I am glad that this Florida state law sides with common sense. While it was a terrible tragedy, I never thought Disney should be liable (at least legally) for what happened. I was surprised how so many people felt Disney should have done more to protect its guests when this occurred.

LAX

 

[ITALIANNYC]

We have to remember too, these were people staying at the Grand Floridian. Fair assumption that they could afford the things like burial or time off work to grieve. A decision not to sue may have been made easier because they were already financially in good position.

That is not a fair assumption

 

[Uncleromulus]

In strict layman's interpretation of case law, Florida law holds that unless you negligently introduced the animal into the circumstance, property owners are not liable for the things animals do. The idea is that wild animals are not owned by anyone and by nature are unpredictable, and therefore you can't assign blame to a property owner for the animal's actions. There are exceptions, but the ruling seems pretty straightforward.

From the ruling: 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.

It's based on the Roman idea of Ferae Naturae, which I only wrote to sound smart You can argue whether WDW had a moral obligation to do more about alligators, even if they knew about them, but it's very difficult to argue they had a legal obligation to do anything more than they did.

I've no doubt Disney settled to make it go away, but I think it would have been an interesting battle had both sides decided to fight.

Indeed--and with someone like me on the jury, that family would have to do a lot of explaining why that poor child was in that water with a" NO Swimming" sign posted. And at night.

 

[smiths02]

Indeed--and with someone like me on the jury, that family would have to do a lot of explaining why that poor child was in that water with a" NO Swimming" sign posted. And at night.

And Disney would never want to make a family explain that to you on a jury-what a PR nightmare

 

[TrampDog]

You can bet the bank that Disney will be bankrolling that foundation.

So what? As someone who has started foundations and orgs, a couple million in seed money with stipulations on usage can be a huge endowment. Managed well, that money will provide a lot of benefit to many people indefinitely. A great way to remember someone.

 

[romitaz]

So what? As someone who has started foundations and orgs, a couple million in seed money with stipulations on usage can be a huge endowment. Managed well, that money will provide a lot of benefit to many people indefinitely. A great way to remember someone.

In what universe are you perceiving my statement as a negative?? I think it is a fantastic idea. It seems that you are trying to beat this dead horse to life. Let it go...