Florida Wildlife at WDW

[mickeyluv'r]

I imagine WDW would be quick to settle. Because the bad publicity of a court case would cost WDW more than the settlement they are likely to offer.

Gators aside, the lake water wasn't safe to enter for multiple reasons. I don't know about any of you, but I wouldn't go in ANY lake/pond after dark in ANY location, especially if no lifeguard. Second, I wouldn't go in the water because the water quality isn't being actively monitored for swimming. I feel for the people of Flint- we expect drinking water to be safe, but nobody should assume untested water is safe.

Meanwhile, GF offers multiple VERY CLEARLY designated SAFE swimming areas. If this had happened in the pool, my answer would be very different.

And WDW DOES need to absolutely ASSURE guests that the POOLS, just a few feet away, are safe places to swim.

I personally also think the cabanas over the water are a bad idea. For all the reasons listed.

 

[mickeyluv'r]

Armadillos are pretty much everywhere here in the south. Unless you plan to catch one or eat it, you are safe from leprosy. They aren't easy to catch. Not sure how they taste, not something I ever wanted to try. Did know boys in high school that liked to catch them. No one ever caught anything. Not that big of a danger to people.

Wild boars don't like people. They are extremely unlikely to ever come around the resorts. We have them here. People go boar hunting (in the woods) and yet other people don't even realize that they live around here so seeing them isn't common.

Coyote we have here also. I can sit on my porch at night and hear them and yet I have only ever seen one. It used to hang out at the pond behind our daycare center. Why? Because we put scraps out there and it was eating. Once the food source went away, he moved on. If people start feeding the coyotes around WDW, maybe they will need a sign for them too but until then, not likely to come visiting the resorts.

What too many are refusing to see is that the problem was not that there are alligators in Florida or in WDW. The problem was/is the alligators were being fed by guests and associated people with food. Rather than staying away, they came up to the shore. Not something they usually do (since this is the first fatal attack ever in WDW, that is pretty clear). This wasn't just a "Disney can't control the wildlife" situation. Of course they can't. But there is more too it than that. If they are unable to control the wildlife (and they are) and pretty much unable to control the guests that feed them (which they are, also) then warning signs are necessary.

While I agree with much of what you say, some of the above can be dangerous- just as gators can be dangerous. I don't live in daily fear of attacks form wild animals, but I also don't pretend they don't exist.

Several DISers claimed that had no idea dangerous animals lived any place on WDW property, and that they shouldn't be expected EVER to know wild animals existed unless there was a sign expressly saying they existed.

 

[luvsJack]

While I agree with much of what you say, some of the above can be dangerous- just as gators can be dangerous. I don't live in daily fear of attacks form wild animals, but I also don't pretend they don't exist.

Several DISers claimed that had no idea dangerous animals lived any place on WDW property, and that they shouldn't be expected EVER to know wild animals existed unless there was a sign expressly saying they existed.

"Coyote attacks on people are extremely rare. There have been a small number of attacks on people in the U.S. and Canada, with most of the attacks involving small children under 5 years of age. Since 3 million children are bitten by dogs every year, your small child is millions of times more likely to get hurt by the family pet than by a coyote." http://tchester.org/sgm/lists/coyote_attacks.html----if you even see a coyote while there, which is highly unlikely (much more likely to see an alligator which is also more likely to attack than the coyote) don't feed it.

Other articles, while saying the boar can be dangerous if it did attack, state that the boars are afraid of the humans that have hunted them for hundreds of years and will run from humans so not dangerous.


The alligators live in water that is close to the resorts and in the parks. The coyotes and boars do not live that close. They are not likely to wander up to the Grand Floridian or come check out Cinderella castle.

 

[GPC0321]

You run the risk of gators in the water anywhere from SC to FL. We live in SC and they are always reports of them on golf courses, in lakes and ponds and even getting into peoples pools.

NC too. Just today there was a picture on social media from a local news station. BIG gator crossing a busy road at the beach. There was one a few years back in a town about 2 hours from me that had killed someone's Siberian Husky. And another one in that same area that totaled a woman's car when she hit it one night. All were very big (over 10 feet) gators.
I've seen a small one dead on the road.

 

[Tomh]

While could be considered separate from high risk/vicious or otherwise, it is fairly widely understood that pit bulls and other terriers have a "high prey drive".

Yeah, they love mice. Generally, they do a better job of mousing than most house cats.

 

[TiggerBouncy]

All I can say is you've been reading predictions from the wrong sources or from those who have little understanding of liability issues.

You're right about one thing though and as I said in the "resorts thread" this clearly wont go to court. Liability is so clear cut (at least for the majority issue although there may be a proportion of contributory negligence) that the insurers for Disney will be offering a substantial settlement quickly.

I think you might want to reread your law books.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/15/opinions/hotels-may-avoid-liability-alligator-attack-danny-cevallos/

In Florida, the law does not require a landowner to anticipate the presence of or guard an invitee against harm from wild animals -- or "ferae naturae." This rule does have exceptions; for example, where the owner harbors such animals or has introduced onto his premises wild animals not indigenous to the locality. If wild animals are reduced to private control, confinement and possession, they become private property, which heightens a landowner's exposure to liability when tragedy strikes.

this gator is quite clearly wild. It was NOT introduced by Disney. it is indigenous to Florida. Although guests have feed them (reportedly), they are not confined, trained, on a leash or a specified welcomed area and are actively removed when found. this distinguishes it from say if a gator that was in Animal Kingdom attacked a guest which would be clearly considered a gator under private control.

The property is maintained in reasonable condition. Further, technically the water was off limits (there was a sign). You could also argue they were not an invitee since they were trespassing (the sign could be changed to just say "no admittance past this point" for more clarity). However, When it comes to alligator attacks, courts in Florida have held that a swimmer's disregard of "No Swimming" and other warning signs were the sole cause of the serious injuries.

Of course as is always true in law, you never know which way it would go. Courts make unpopular and unexpected rulings all the time. In general though, i think Disney has a reasonable chance of winning if they fight it as I don't think you would win a claim the resort was negligent. Liability is not clear cut and if they fought they would likely win.

They probably won't fight though - as I mentioned, WDW would mostly likely settle out of court to avoid expanding on the already huge PR nightmare.

 

[luvsJack]

I think you might want to reread your law books.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/15/opinions/hotels-may-avoid-liability-alligator-attack-danny-cevallos/


this gator is quite clearly wild. It was NOT introduced by Disney. it is indigenous to Florida. Although guests have feed them (reportedly), they are not confined, trained, on a leash or a specified welcomed area and are actively removed when found. this distinguishes it from say if a gator that was in Animal Kingdom attacked a guest which would be clearly considered a gator under private control.

The property is maintained in reasonable condition. Further, technically the water was off limits (there was a sign). You could also argue they were not an invitee since they were trespassing (the sign could be changed to just say "no admittance past this point" for more clarity). However, When it comes to alligator attacks, courts in Florida have held that a swimmer's disregard of "No Swimming" and other warning signs were the sole cause of the serious injuries.

Of course as is always true in law, you never know which way it would go. Courts make unpopular and unexpected rulings all the time. In general though, i think Disney has a reasonable chance of winning if they fight it as I don't think you would win a claim the resort was negligent. Liability is not clear cut and if they fought they would likely win.

They probably won't fight though - as I mentioned, WDW would mostly likely settle out of court to avoid expanding on the already huge PR nightmare.

http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/southeast/2016/06/20/271681.htm

This makes it sound not quite as simple as you make it sound.

I do agree that Disney won't fight it and will settle or try to, as I think they should.

 

[dfb]

I think you might want to reread your law books.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/15/opinions/hotels-may-avoid-liability-alligator-attack-danny-cevallos/


this gator is quite clearly wild. It was NOT introduced by Disney. it is indigenous to Florida. Although guests have feed them (reportedly), they are not confined, trained, on a leash or a specified welcomed area and are actively removed when found. this distinguishes it from say if a gator that was in Animal Kingdom attacked a guest which would be clearly considered a gator under private control.

The property is maintained in reasonable condition. Further, technically the water was off limits (there was a sign). You could also argue they were not an invitee since they were trespassing (the sign could be changed to just say "no admittance past this point" for more clarity). However, When it comes to alligator attacks, courts in Florida have held that a swimmer's disregard of "No Swimming" and other warning signs were the sole cause of the serious injuries.

Of course as is always true in law, you never know which way it would go. Courts make unpopular and unexpected rulings all the time. In general though, i think Disney has a reasonable chance of winning if they fight it as I don't think you would win a claim the resort was negligent. Liability is not clear cut and if they fought they would likely win.

They probably won't fight though - as I mentioned, WDW would mostly likely settle out of court to avoid expanding on the already huge PR nightmare.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/nation/dis...nowledge-questioned-in-gator-attack/249204716

There are all kinds of articles about the liability of this event. Quoting the same laws that support Disney's liability. Even if you look at the article you linked: read the part about the duties an owners owes to an invitee items 1 & 2a,b,c. concerning warning guest of dangers. Read the story about the fire ants. Same type components as the events at GF.

It is obvious that Disney knew about gators in the lagoon. It is obvious at least some guest were unaware of gators in the lagoon.

I'll assume you'll disagree and I'll leave it at that. This will never go to court because Disney would lose.

The most important thing is they did a disservice to all their guest by not providing adequate warning. ...and I'm not talking about general knowledge of gators in FL or a freak visit of a lone gator just passing thru with no prior incidents or sightings. I'm talking about a "gator problem" with previous attacks, sightings, etc. gators being near guest areas so long CMs name them. Guest feeding gators which promotes attacks, etc. This is a gator problem. This is about as close to harboring an animal as I can think without drawing up adoption papers.

Another thing I don't get. There seems to be a lot said about the child being in the water. I don't know if the child was in the water or not. I don't think it matters. I am not a wildlife expert but I have seen enough wildlife film footage to know, I've seen gators attacking a small animal approaching the water's edge but had never even touched the water. It seems the tactic would be to wait below surface looking for manageable prey to get close enough to the water to grab and quickly get back into the water where they have an advantage. The prey maybe coming to get a drink, watch a fireworks display or other.

 

[mickeyluv'r]

"Coyote attacks on people are extremely rare...

A week ago, you'd likely have said the same thing about gator attacks at WDW: the risk is extremely low, as every past thread on the subject (rightly) concluded.

Yet my old guidebook warns guests to be aware of FL critters, and CM's warned us last winter that it wasn't safe to walk between Ft. W and WL due to critters.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

Wild animals live in the USA. Sometimes they interact with humans. Three days ago, a boy was attacked in his own backyard by a mountain lion. A woman was attacked by a bear while running a marathon.

I'm a big fan of awareness and common sense.

 

[luvsJack]

A week ago, you'd likely have said the same thing about gator attacks at WDW: the risk is extremely low, as every past thread on the subject (rightly) concluded.

Yet my old guidebook warns guests to be aware of FL critters, and CM's warned us last winter that it wasn't safe to walk between Ft. W and WL due to critters.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

Wild animals live in the USA. Sometimes they interact with humans. Three days ago, a boy was attacked in his own backyard by a mountain lion. A woman was attacked by a bear while running a marathon.

I'm a big fan of awareness and common sense.

Wait, so a CM warns people that it isn't safe to walk in some places due to animals that may or may not be seen but they didn't warn about alligators? That's interesting.

Anyway, coyotes are much less likely to attack than alligators. They are not very big animals.

I couldn't say about bears and cougars. We don't have cougars. We do have bears but they are less likely to attack than the coyotes.

The most dangerous critters on your walks in WDW are going to be the snakes and the spiders. THOSE you need to watch for any where.


I am not sure what you mean about putting words in your mouth. There is a difference in being aware of FL critters and talking about armadillos carrying leprocy as though one may bite you and give you the disease.

 

[dfb]

A week ago, you'd likely have said the same thing about gator attacks at WDW: the risk is extremely low, as every past thread on the subject (rightly) concluded.

Yet my old guidebook warns guests to be aware of FL critters, and CM's warned us last winter that it wasn't safe to walk between Ft. W and WL due to critters.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

Wild animals live in the USA. Sometimes they interact with humans. Three days ago, a boy was attacked in his own backyard by a mountain lion. A woman was attacked by a bear while running a marathon.

I'm a big fan of awareness and common sense.

Have coyotes, boar or any other animal attacked anyone at WDW? Are any of these animals found regularly in guest areas enough to be named by CMs. Numerous interactions between these animals and guest, such as sightings, feeding etc? No one can prevent 100% a random attack of any animal. But when you have a Resort that has a gator problem, the resort must warn the guest.

 

[mickeyluv'r]

Again, I think you are putting words in my mouth that I never said.

It's getting a bit tiresome.

 

[mickeyluv'r]

Have coyotes, boar or any other animal attacked anyone at WDW? Are any of these animals found regularly in guest areas enough to be named by CMs. Numerous interactions between these animals and guest, such as sightings, feeding etc?

I don't know.

I only know we were warned to avoid the wooded areas of Fort Wilderness after dark because they pose a danger.

Makes sense to me, but if you don't want to believe it, so be it.

 

[TiggerBouncy]

There are all kinds of articles about the liability of this event. Quoting the same laws that support Disney's liability. Even if you look at the article you linked: read the part about the duties an owners owes to an invitee items 1 & 2a,b,c. concerning warning guest of dangers. Read the story about the fire ants. Same type components as the events at GF.

It is obvious that Disney knew about gators in the lagoon. It is obvious at least some guest were unaware of gators in the lagoon.

I'll assume you'll disagree and I'll leave it at that.

You're right. Because the whole point that they go into is why that law doesn't apply.

whether or not Disney fulfilled its duty to the child and his family doesn't just depend on their status as "invitees." It's also determined by the legal status of the "hidden danger" -- in this case, the alligator.

"Ferae naturae," meaning "animals of a wild nature or disposition," is a legal doctrine -- dating back to the Roman Empire -- in which wild animals are presumed to be owned by no one specifically but by the people generally. Simply put: Under the law, wild animals are unpredictable and uncontrollable.

So the article is quite clear on why Disney could be considered as fulfilling their obligations to the invitee.

Read the whole article next time and not the first paragraph. It gives both sides and it's quite fair to both. The point I am making is that liability is by no means certain. It could go either way and assuming Disney is in the wrong is... wrong.

 

[dfb]

I don't know.

I only know we were warned to avoid the wooded areas of Fort Wilderness after dark because they pose a danger.

Makes sense to me, but if you don't want to believe it, so be it.

It was a question? I was not aware of problems with these animals. I also was not aware of the numerous interactions with guest and gators at WDW before this event and seeing the subsequent post about past folks interactions.

 

[dfb]

I read the entire article. I say it supports neglect on Disney's part. It does not conclude WDW is or is not liable but for me it supports liability based on what I understand happened in this event. You don't so no big deal?

So trying to interject some common sense into this, let me simplify with a question.

If your home/property backed up to a lake and you knew there were resident gators in that lake. Would you not have a concern and warn guest about going near the water?

 

[Luckybee]

I think you might want to reread your law books.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/15/opinions/hotels-may-avoid-liability-alligator-attack-danny-cevallos/


this gator is quite clearly wild. It was NOT introduced by Disney. it is indigenous to Florida. Although guests have feed them (reportedly), they are not confined, trained, on a leash or a specified welcomed area and are actively removed when found. this distinguishes it from say if a gator that was in Animal Kingdom attacked a guest which would be clearly considered a gator under private control.

The property is maintained in reasonable condition. Further, technically the water was off limits (there was a sign). You could also argue they were not an invitee since they were trespassing (the sign could be changed to just say "no admittance past this point" for more clarity). However, When it comes to alligator attacks, courts in Florida have held that a swimmer's disregard of "No Swimming" and other warning signs were the sole cause of the serious injuries.

Of course as is always true in law, you never know which way it would go. Courts make unpopular and unexpected rulings all the time. In general though, i think Disney has a reasonable chance of winning if they fight it as I don't think you would win a claim the resort was negligent. Liability is not clear cut and if they fought they would likely win.

They probably won't fight though - as I mentioned, WDW would mostly likely settle out of court to avoid expanding on the already huge PR nightmare.

Rather than you and I trading credentials as in ("I have significant litigation experience , what's your's...lol" )I'll instead simply defer to others. US today quotes a number of trial lawyers with experience in these types of cases, and one in particular referencing just what you've said. You may, perhaps find the comment interesting....


"David Shiner, an attorney and managing partner Shiner Law Group in the Miami area, says the state’s law doesn’t require an owner of a land to anticipate the presence of harm from wild animals unless the owner either owns the wild animal or introduced it. “They didn’t own the alligator,” he said. “But if they know people are going into these areas, Disney has a duty to warn them if they knew of the presence of alligators.”

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...iability-prior-knowledge-questioned/86036062/

 

[JimmyV]

I would have been more concerned with the possibility of a small child falling and getting water up their nose. The brain eating amoeba is more prevalent near the shore where the water is warmer and when the water is churned up by walking, swimming or falling. And the amoeba isn't just a Florida thing, so there isn't an excuse for not being careful.

Just as an FYI. As noted, this isn't just a Disney thing:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/oh...-park-with-church-group/ar-AAhu211?li=BBnb7Kz