Alligator Drags Toddler Into Lagoon at Disney Resort

[Matata]

That wasn't defensiveness, that was frustration at a mind-set that immediately assumed something negative.

 

[momhappy]

I didn't assume anything was negative - it was just a comment over a typo. Again, it's no big deal and no harm done.

 

[House Cat]

This is very much like the McDonald's coffee case.

Coffee is hot. It burns. Woman got 3rd degree burns. Sued and was granted a huge damage reward.

Now, common sense says coffee is hot liquid and hot liquid burns.

In this case, common sense says: lake in Florida= gator danger.

That doesn't mean Disney isn't going to be liable. McDonald's certainly was.

The questions that would be asked are as follows:

1. Was the event "gator attacking guest on beach" reasonably foreseeable?
2. Was there a duty to warn on Disney's part?
3. Was there adequate warning of the danger by Disney?
4. Could the event have been avoided if there had been adequate warning?

And of COURSE, I don't know the particulars and there seems to be some conflicting information about whether this was a restricted and off limits area or not. But if it is true that the area was COMMONLY frequented by the resort guests and the MANAGEMENT KNEW about that, and didn't take steps to make it inaccessible, then it may be largely irrelevant that it was a restricted area because they may have still had a duty of care and a duty to warn of the gator danger.

So if the answer to the above is as follows:
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No
4. Yes

Then Disney would be liable. And they may not be able to settle. The plaintiff has to consent to settlement. And some plaintiff's WANT a court trial.

Disney actually has a problem right now. If they start putting up signs ASAP then that may be used against them.

That coffee was 180 degrees and the woman sustained incredible 3rd degree burns all over her legs and genitalia. Coffee is hot but it is never boiling. According to the Mc Donald's handbook, the restaurants were required to keep the coffee that hot. That is why they were sued and that is why they lost.

People really need to get the facts of that case and stop looking at it as a frivolous lawsuit.

There is a documentary that helps with this. It is called Hot Coffee and it is excellent.

 

[House Cat]

Maybe it is the Californian in me or the OCD in me but if a body of water says "no swimming" then I am definitely not allowing my kids in that freakin water. My mind goes straight to contamination, weird deadly bacteria growing in the water, needles, something unsafe other than crocks...but ankles, toes, nothing is touching that water! No swimming means stay the hell out of the water.

Sigh.

This whole thing is just too sad.


And crocks aren't pets. If they are, then I want to see the CEO of Disney go out and kiss the crock that killed that little boy.

 

[AprilBaby]

There have been gators at Coronado springs as long as I can remember. I have pictures of them. Only an idiot would have said they were pets. I doubt the guy was told that by anyone in management. Again, I doubt this goes to court. They will do whatever it takes to settle out of court. Btw, the new sign doesn't say anything about brain eating amoebas. Wait till someone ignores that sign and gets one.

 

[House Cat]

Maybe it is the Californian in me or the OCD in me but if a body of water says "no swimming" then I am definitely not allowing my kids in that freakin water. My mind goes straight to contamination, weird deadly bacteria growing in the water, needles, something unsafe other than crocks...but ankles, toes, nothing is touching that water! No swimming means stay the hell out of the water.

Sigh.

This whole thing is just too sad.


And crocks aren't pets. If they are, then I want to see the CEO of Disney go out and kiss the crock that killed that little boy.

correction: gators...not crocks...sorry.

 

[House Cat]

There have been gators at Coronado springs as long as I can remember. I have pictures of them. Only an idiot would have said they were pets. I doubt the guy was told that by anyone in management. Again, I doubt this goes to court. They will do whatever it takes to settle out of court. Btw, the new sign doesn't say anything about brain eating amoebas. Wait till someone ignores that sign and gets one.

Sometimes entire beaches are closed due to toxic algae or spills or whatever the heck. People who live on the coast learn to take "no swimming" seriously.

Brain-eating amoebas only happen in your neti pot when you don't boil the water..silly goose!

 

[House Cat]

http://fox8.com/2016/06/18/disturbing-video-disney-worker-fights-off-alligator-near-splash-mountain/

Guests were known to feed the gators?

Employee fights off gator at splash mountain..

Edit to add: did people think these were "trained gators?" Because everything is happy at Disney World?

 

[Gypsy]

This is very much like the McDonald's coffee case.

Coffee is hot. It burns. Woman got 3rd degree burns. Sued and was granted a huge damage reward.

Now, common sense says coffee is hot liquid and hot liquid burns.

In this case, common sense says: lake in Florida= gator danger.

That doesn't mean Disney isn't going to be liable. McDonald's certainly was.

The questions that would be asked are as follows:

1. Was the event "gator attacking guest on beach" reasonably foreseeable?
2. Was there a duty to warn on Disney's part?
3. Was there adequate warning of the danger by Disney?
4. Could the event have been avoided if there had been adequate warning?

And of COURSE, I don't know the particulars and there seems to be some conflicting information about whether this was a restricted and off limits area or not. But if it is true that the area was COMMONLY frequented by the resort guests and the MANAGEMENT KNEW about that, and didn't take steps to make it inaccessible, then it may be largely irrelevant that it was a restricted area because they may have still had a duty of care and a duty to warn of the gator danger.

So if the answer to the above is as follows:
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No
4. Yes

Then Disney would be liable. And they may not be able to settle. The plaintiff has to consent to settlement. And some plaintiff's WANT a court trial.

Disney actually has a problem right now. If they start putting up signs ASAP then that may be used against them.

That coffee was 180 degrees and the woman sustained incredible 3rd degree burns all over her legs and genitalia. Coffee is hot but it is never boiling. According to the Mc Donald's handbook, the restaurants were required to keep the coffee that hot. That is why they were sued and that is why they lost.

People really need to get the facts of that case and stop looking at it as a frivolous lawsuit.

There is a documentary that helps with this. It is called Hot Coffee and it is excellent.

House cat,
I not only looked at the facts of that case, I studied it for over a week in law school in my Torts class. I was also tested on it for my Torts exam. And reviewed it AGAIN in my Bar Review course. So I feel qualified to say I am well versed in the facts of that case.

Contrary to your implication, I was not saying that either case is a frivolous law suit. No where in my posts have I even implied that. And I certainly didn't deserve your derisive tone above.

I was simply drawing a parallel between the incidents to show that companies can be liable in court for events that the average person applying "common sense" would think lack merit.

Also, the boiling point for water AND coffee is 212 degrees Fahrenheit. Not 180. So the coffee was not technically boiling. I only mention it because you seem rather set on factual accuracy.

 

[Gypsy]

Pets? Really?

Morons.

It has to be established that the upper management new about it for Disney to truly be toast. But in the court of public opinion, that's bad.

Gypsy, isn't it "knew or should have known"? It's that way in Oregon.

Oops! You are correct, of course. I didn't read too much into Florida's Torts Liability Statues. I find Florida to be one of those states that have laws that make me angry. In many (sane, so not sure about Florida) jurisdictions the standard is "should have known" for liability. However, if I remember correctly (meh...) even in jurisdictions where "should have known" is the standard for general liability for PUNITIVE damages ("you are irrevocably scr*wed and plaintiff's counsel is doing the polka with glee") the standard can be the higher "knew" (with proof of the same) without the "should have known" tacked on. And it's just jurisdiction specific.

 

[House Cat]

This is very much like the McDonald's coffee case.

Coffee is hot. It burns. Woman got 3rd degree burns. Sued and was granted a huge damage reward.

Now, common sense says coffee is hot liquid and hot liquid burns.

In this case, common sense says: lake in Florida= gator danger.

That doesn't mean Disney isn't going to be liable. McDonald's certainly was.

The questions that would be asked are as follows:

1. Was the event "gator attacking guest on beach" reasonably foreseeable?
2. Was there a duty to warn on Disney's part?
3. Was there adequate warning of the danger by Disney?
4. Could the event have been avoided if there had been adequate warning?

And of COURSE, I don't know the particulars and there seems to be some conflicting information about whether this was a restricted and off limits area or not. But if it is true that the area was COMMONLY frequented by the resort guests and the MANAGEMENT KNEW about that, and didn't take steps to make it inaccessible, then it may be largely irrelevant that it was a restricted area because they may have still had a duty of care and a duty to warn of the gator danger.

So if the answer to the above is as follows:
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No
4. Yes

Then Disney would be liable. And they may not be able to settle. The plaintiff has to consent to settlement. And some plaintiff's WANT a court trial.

Disney actually has a problem right now. If they start putting up signs ASAP then that may be used against them.

That coffee was 180 degrees and the woman sustained incredible 3rd degree burns all over her legs and genitalia. Coffee is hot but it is never boiling. According to the Mc Donald's handbook, the restaurants were required to keep the coffee that hot. That is why they were sued and that is why they lost.

People really need to get the facts of that case and stop looking at it as a frivolous lawsuit.

There is a documentary that helps with this. It is called Hot Coffee and it is excellent.

House cat,
I not only looked at the facts of that case, I studied it for over a week in law school in my Torts class. I was also tested on it for my Torts exam. And reviewed it AGAIN in my Bar Review course. So I feel qualified to say I am well versed in the facts of that case.

Contrary to your implication, I was not saying that either case is a frivolous law suit. No where in my posts have I even implied that. And I certainly didn't deserve your derisive tone above.

I was simply drawing a parallel between the incidents to show that companies can be liable in court for events that the average person applying "common sense" would think lack merit.

Also, the boiling point for water AND coffee is 212 degrees Fahrenheit. Not 180. So the coffee was not technically boiling. I only mention it because you seem rather set on factual accuracy.

Gypsy,

I am so sorry I made the assumption that you were implying that the coffee lawsuit was frivolous. I am so accustomed to people saying that about that case that I put words in your mouth!!

Please forgive me.

 

[Gypsy]

It just really surprised me.

Completely forgotten.

I was really only posting it in response to the "common sense" posts.

 

[momhappy]

http://www.wusa9.com/news/nation-now/mom-shares-photos-of-son-playing-in-disney-lagoon-hour-before-gator-grabs-toddler/250228086