Heartbreaking news...a big reminder to be aware of wildlife on property

[MickeyMinnieMom]

So much talk about rule vs. danger...
In my opinion, it shouldn't matter and it doesn't. If they say don't, you don't. You don't weigh the consequences of rule vs. danger. You don't sit back and say "well it doesn't imply danger so I'll do it anyway." Signs shouldn't have to imply danger. If it's a rule, you should be following it regardless of any danger.

That's fair. That's your opinion that there SHOULDN'T be a difference in terms of someone's actions whether the sign connotes a RULE or a DANGER. As I've said, I act the same way regardless as well.

In REALITY, there is a difference between how most people would interpret those signs, and for SOME, it will impact their behavior. We can say people SHOULD care as much about following a company's rule as they do protecting themselves from possible (however unlikely) serious physical harm, but a good number will not!

Why not indicate a clear possible DANGER -- however unlikely? Fully inform your customer. That's all.

 

[Bon1423]

I'm horribly saddened by this news story. My thoughts and prayers are with the family.

This will long be debated on who's responsibility it was and was it preventable. In my opinion, I think both the parents and Disney is equally responsible and are somewhat at fault. First the parents for not following the "no swimming" signs. Yes I know that "no swimming" has different meaning to different people, but could they have asked a CM why these signs were there and if ok to have the little one in the water (not swimming). Maybe they did ask and maybe not, I was not there so no way for me to tell. On the second hand, I think Disney is equally responsible because they created an oasis (man-made beach), placed hammocks and loungers on these beaches for guests to use knowing fully of the dangers lurking close by thus creating a false sense of safety.

In the end, I agree that better signage could be placed alongside the water, but do you expect to see a signage along bushes at the resorts to warn of possible snakes, spiders and other wildlife? Is it truly Disney's responsibility to warn guests of the wildlife? If you drive on a road (non-Disney property) and a deer jumps out and you hit it with you car, is that land owner responsible because he did not have a sign to say "careful of crossing deer"? Can you imagine all the signs there would be alongside the roads?n

This is interesting because I live in an area heavily populated by deer and winding back roads where there are very frequent signs showing deer, indicating to be on the look out for deer crossing the road. Obviously there will be deer in places other than the signs, but the point still stands that it's common to warn of dangers from wildlife, even when you're in an area where everyone would expect to see wildlife. A simple sign by the water showing a picture of an alligator or snake would not be unreasonable given how many people are surprised to hear alligators are at Disney.

 

[old feller]

Yes, it could still happen. It just happened twice down here where I live but it was dogs that were taken. One was snatched while being walked on a leash by waters edge. Other ran between its owner and gator, gator got the dog instead. Neither of these people or dogs were in the water

Thought so...thanks

 

[Huff]

Why in the world shouldn't two year olds be in a lake "alligator or not"?

Only if they are drown proofed which I feel is essential if kids that young are around water. Its possible to drown proof kids even younger than 2. Why in the world would you allow a child that is not able to swim nor taught drown proofing in water? Kids under 2 drown in less than a foot of water quite often.

 

[jknc]

Disney is likely self insured so the money will be coming from Disney.


Legally it depends if they failed to provide adequate warning and/or shelter.

So what warning or protection should they provide from wildlife?

 

[Boski]

Disney is likely self insured so the money will be coming from Disney.


Legally it depends if they failed to provide adequate warning and/or shelter.

Do you have case decisions you can pull up quickly to back that up? I'd be curious to read those.

 

[AshleeH]

Only if they are drown proofed which I feel is essential if kids that young are around water. Its possible to drown proof kids even younger than 2. Why in the world would you allow a child that is not able to swim nor taught drown proofing in water? Kids under 2 drown in less than a foot of water quite often.

While I don't think they should've been in the water, that's a non-issue at this point - what makes you think he couldn't swim? Has that been mentioned in the media? I ask because my friend was showing me a video of her 2 year old jumping off their diving board the other day and he can swim better than my 13 year old. We have a boat for the lake and our kids are always in life vests, but not at the shore line.

 

[Duckiedee]

Only if they are drown proofed which I feel is essential if kids that young are around water. Its possible to drown proof kids even younger than 2. Why in the world would you allow a child that is not able to swim nor taught drown proofing in water? Kids under 2 drown in less than a foot of water quite often.

Well, if you are pretty much an arm's length away - which apparently Mom was, your child is not going to drown any more than in the bathtub if you are paying attention. You let your kids play at the water's edge and in water because it is good for sensory learning, it is fun, and a good parent lets their kids explore - if it were only a question of playing in water - she WAS being safe. The toddler was in a very shallow area.

Dad was also close enough to attempt to fight the alligator before it got away. They were watching, they were vigilant, there was an ALLIGATOR.

 

[WuvEeyore]

I agree with the sentiment about people breaking rules and then getting compensated for it but I don't think thats going to change the outcome on this. I guarantee you lawyers will be all over this. Depending on the verbiage of the sign and how it was interpreted will be a huge factor in this that will likely see a settlement in the millions. I do believe we will see fences go up on these beaches and/or beach events come to an end. Something will change, not sure what, but Disney will act on this.

I know we live in a litigious society and people will sue for anything. I mean if someone is allergic to bees and gets stung while on Disney property, are they going to sue because there were no signs warning them that there might be bees and that they could possibly get stung? I can just see the signs now:

Welcome to Disney
We can't control all of nature
Nature is all around you
Something bad could happen
You could be:
stung by a bee
bitten by a snake
attacked by an alligator
run over by an ECV
sit next to someone eating peanuts
pooped on by a bird
bitten by a duck you were trying to feed a fry to
a squirrel could steal something you left in your stroller
a person to steal something from you
a person could hit you
a person could cut in line in front of you
etc
so, just keep vigilant and don't forget to enjoy the most magical place on earth

 

[BlondeAppetit]

I think we are going to very quickly learn that the parents were responsible people. I also think that the foot of water thing is a misunderstanding by the media. I believe that the child was a foot into the water from the shore. Not in water that was 12" deep.

 

[minniemous]

So much talk about rule vs. danger...
In my opinion, it shouldn't matter and it doesn't. If they say don't, you don't. You don't weigh the consequences of rule vs. danger. You don't sit back and say "well it doesn't imply danger so I'll do it anyway." Signs shouldn't have to imply danger. If it's a rule, you should be following it regardless of any danger.

Personally I would think that saying "do not swim" is enough reason to not go in the water. There is obviously a reason they posted the sign, so caution/common sense/good judgment should be exercised.

That said, I don't want to place blame on the family. Especially during such a horrific time. It is easy for all of us, who are far removed from the situation, to pass judgment on the family and/or Disney with "if only the family did this" or "if Disney did that." Even if better judgment could have been exercised by either party, this was a freak accident and should be treated with compassion.

So not true....a sign that says no swimming is not at all like "stay out of water." Our beach will put out no swimming signs all the time but it does not mean they are saying do not walk in to your ankles. They are saying no swimming. It is a dangerous rip tide or something inherent to swimming not the water itself.

Also after placing blame you say you do not want to place blame. You are placing blame on the parents, saying you do not want to is worthless.

I personally can not stand it when people do not own their own actions but clearly in this situation disney should have had a sign to warm people from other states and countries the presence of alligator. This could have also happened on the edge of the beach as well. The simple matter that there is a sandy beach would relax a person into thinking walking in the water is not a danger without a more specific warning.

 

[TXAKDisneyFan]

I grew up in Alaska, and never visited an area of the country with alligators until I was in my 20s. It never occurred to me that people WOULDN'T know there are alligators all over Florida, including on WDW property. It's surprising to me that so many people were unaware, or think that Disney is somehow capable of eliminating all wildlife from their property.

Perhaps signage does need to be changed, and I'm sure that's something the company will address. I haven't read all the comments, but there is a reasonable limit to what can and should be posted - maybe pictorial warnings would be best since there are so many foreign visitors? However, whatever warnings they put up, there will always be people who disregard them.

It is widely known to watch out for bear and moose in Alaska, including in the "big city." People still don't listen- they still feed moose, leave trash out for bears to get into, and they still go onto trails ill-prepared. Every year, there are news stories about people who are stomped by moose, mauled by bears, or who get stuck in the mud flats. Hopefully if anything comes out of this horrible incident, it's that more guests are vigilant and learn to make themselves aware of dangers wherever they may be.

 

[thetallone101]

I think we are going to very quickly learn that the parents were responsible people. I also think that the foot of water thing is a misunderstanding by the media. I believe that the child was a foot into the water from the shore. Not in water that was 12" deep.

And you know this how? That's pretty presumptuous.

 

[A Mickeyfan]

This is interesting because I live in an area heavily populated by deer and winding back roads where there are very frequent signs showing deer, indicating to be on the look out for deer crossing the road. Obviously there will be deer in places other than the signs, but the point still stands that it's common to warn of dangers from wildlife, even when you're in an area where everyone would expect to see wildlife. A simple sign by the water showing a picture of an alligator or snake would not be unreasonable given how many people are surprised to hear alligators are at Disney.

You do know there are deer at Diney too right? They are often seen on the side of the roads heavily populated with trees and brush, both day and night

 

[BlondeAppetit]

A "No swimming" sign does not mean anything other than a published warning not to engage in the act of swimming. Swimming is not walking in the water.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

I know we live in a litigious society and people will sue for anything. I mean if someone is allergic to bees and gets stung while on Disney property, are they going to sue because there were no signs warning them that there might be bees and that they could possibly get stung? I can just see the signs now:

Welcome to Disney
We can't control all of nature
Nature is all around you
Something bad could happen
You could be:
stung by a bee
bitten by a snake
attacked by an alligator
run over by an ECV
sit next to someone eating peanuts
pooped on by a bird
bitten by a duck you were trying to feed a fry to
a squirrel could steal something you left in your stroller
a person to steal something from you
a person could hit you
a person could cut in line in front of you
etc
so, just keep vigilant and don't forget to enjoy the most magical place on earth

While I agree about an overly litigious society, I think this list is ludicrous here.

I bet that if you surveyed WDW guests, the vast majority would have NO IDEA that alligators were active in these zero-entry little "beaches" where Disney organizes daily and nightly activities encouraging people to congregate. We can argue all day that they SHOULD know this can happen -- it's Florida after all -- even in magical WDW. I'd bet that most still wouldn't have any idea.

A basic warning of possible DANGER from wildlife here would be costless for Disney.

 

[momofkids]

Disney doesn't warn me about crime or that cute animals might carry disease, but I am still aware those things exist. No one can warn you of every possible danger at every moment. The risk of an alligator attack was relatively low. Disney had warnings to stay out of the water. The family was naïve and assumed there was no danger. It was a freak accident. The whole thing is tragic. Sometimes bad things happen to good people. That does not mean anyone was negligent. I am sure Disney will change the signs to "keep out of the water" or something. I can't imagine that they should have to do more than that.

 

[mking624]

That's fair. That's your opinion that there SHOULDN'T be a difference in terms of someone's actions whether the sign connotes a RULE or a DANGER. As I've said, I act the same way regardless as well.

In REALITY, there is a difference between how most people would interpret those signs, and for SOME, it will impact their behavior. We can say people SHOULD care as much about following a company's rule as they do protecting themselves from possible (however unlikely) serious physical harm, but a good number will not!

Why not indicate a clear possible DANGER -- however unlikely? Fully inform your customer. That's all.

This is when it comes down to personal responsibility. You're right that a good number of people do not care about following rules. And the same lack of care would still happen no matter what signage had been posted. Maybe not by the same amount of people, but it would still exist. Would it have stopped this family? We don't know. We can say it would have completely prevented this from happening, but we ultimately don't know that. We don't know if the family still would have allowed their child in the water. It sucks to not know because people always want answers. But we don't know.

As far indicating a clear possible danger, how many times have we heard of bus and car accidents on property? Should Disney post signs warning people of the dangers of driving? Should Disney post signs warning people that they could die because other people are on the road as well? Let's take it to its logical conclusion....because that would be fully informing the customer. I'm not saying Disney shouldn't post more detailed signs. It's quite likely they will now. But I wonder why people aren't arguing for similar signage about ALL potential dangers at Disney? Because they do exist.

This is a situation where a lot of people want to play the blame game...as evidenced by the many posts on this thread. People want to find loopholes so Disney can take responsibility. People want to blame the parents for not following the rules. People just want to blame because it is a heartbreaking situation that no one wants to be in. Sometimes it's just easier to get angry at others when it is a situation we can't make much, if any, sense of.

 

[mking624]

The number of people who indicate that many visitors don't know about the wildlife is a good indication that visitors need to take responsibility in researching their travel destinations...and not just the rides they want to go on.

 

[A Mickeyfan]

Settle the case with money, just money??? Money only helps the lawyers, not the parents nor the family. 't I were the parent, Disney has to do more than just give me money to settle it. Disney needs to do something very good to the human kinds and stop being a money-grabber in order to compensate for the loss of my child.

Nothing can compensate for the loss of a child. When a person sues, it is usually for money, that's why attorney's take on the cases the way they do. Their fee is based on the award and paid out of the award