"Attractive hazard" [Orlando Gator attack]

[Suzanimal]

FIFY

He does have big feet. He's 6'4". He's also a flat earther who believes Obama is the "leopard" (whatever the hell that means) and he constantly makes FB posts about earthquakes and tremors (probably believes in those worms from the movie). He got banned from Ron and Rand Paul's FB pages last year and asked me to intervene (like I know them- I don't, btw). Probably got banned for posting crazy $#@!.

[ChristianAnarchist]

He does have big feet. He's 6'4". He's also a flat earther who believes Obama is the "leopard" (whatever the hell that means) and he constantly makes FB posts about earthquakes and tremors (probably believes in those worms from the movie). He got banned from Ron and Rand Paul's FB pages last year and asked me to intervene (like I know them- I don't, btw). Probably got banned for posting crazy $#@!.

Looks like you don't call him "Mr Animal" for nothing...

[jmdrake]

Why would you assume that there were alligators everywhere except Disney?

Obvious guy says "Because Disney portrays itself as a family friendly park and a family friendly park rids itself of dangerous pests."

Really this isn't that hard. Disney could have been alligator free if they wanted to be. All it would require is to have nightly hunts of all of the gators. Kill or trap and relocate everyone on site. Your house can be rat and roach free if you are willing to spend the money to make and keep them rat and roach free. The ponds on your property can be gator free if you are willing to spend the money to make and keep them gator free. Disney was warned about the gators and they decided to call them "pets." Further the law says if you know you have dangerous animals on your property and you are inviting people on your property you have a duty to warn them about the dangerous animals.

Why would you risk the life of your child by permitting him/her to wade in water in Florida?

Because there are bodies of water all over Florida that do NOT have gators in them!

Here is a general true statement. There is un-exploded ordinance from WW I and WW II all over France. That doesn't mean you should expect to step on a shell or a landmine whenever you are walking in a park in France. If the landowner is made aware of un-exploded ordinance he should take the proper steps to remove the ordinance and in the meantime warn people that it's there.

[jmdrake]

Um, a number of them do, or they have jogging paths, or docks, or areas to feed the ducks, or picnic areas right up against the water. They're quite nice during the day and you just keep an eye out. Again, normal alligators are not out to get you. They're out to get their normal food and protect their nests and fight each other for territory.

This same week, several other people have been attacked by native wildlife. Next week, it'll happen again. A few weeks ago, traffic was snarled near here because of a small alligator crossing the road. Up north, it was deer, and further up north it's moose. Out west, I had no expectation that the areas around Vegas resorts would be meticulously cleared of scorpions or snakes. Most of the people in the thread have basically said they didn't think there'd be alligators at Disney, even if there were gators elsewhere. Yep. That's pretty foolish. They can send patrols out all they want, but they'll never be completely rid of alligators (or snakes or snapping turtles or other nasty hazards). They can only mitigate the problem of hand-fed alligators, and alligator breeding grounds they've allowed to fester on their property. And of course they can put up little rope barriers and signs that won't actually stop people from feeding them or going wading, but will only minimize their liability in a lawsuit situation.

Wrong! PUTTING UP SIGNS WOULD HAVE COMPLETELY NEGATED THEIR LIABILITY IN A LAWSUIT!

Seriously, did you totally miss the back and forth between myself and presence? The case law with regards to wild animals is this. If a wild animal wanders on your property and attacks someone you are not liable unless you had knowledge of the wild animal and you didn't warn the people you invited to come and use your property. It's that freaking simple. It's not hard. There's no need to complicate this with all this BS. Disney knew about multiple gator attacks on their property. It was only a matter of time before someone got killed. They could have, and freaking should have, warned people about it. And yes, there should have been gator patrols to capture and or kill all gators on Disney property. To avoid a lawsuit? No. To avoid a needless death! That is simply the decent human thing to do! Now if your using your property a wilderness area where people are paying to see wild dangerous animals, kind of alike a Jurassic Park sort of deal, then fine. Let the gators roam free. But if you are pushing this as a family friendly park, then do your freaking part to make it actually family friendly!

[MelissaWV]

Wrong! PUTTING UP SIGNS WOULD HAVE COMPLETELY NEGATED THEIR LIABILITY IN A LAWSUIT!

Seriously, did you totally miss the back and forth between myself and presence? The case law with regards to wild animals is this. If a wild animal wanders on your property and attacks someone you are not liable unless you had knowledge of the wild animal and you didn't warn the people you invited to come and use your property. It's that freaking simple. It's not hard. There's no need to complicate this with all this BS. Disney knew about multiple gator attacks on their property. It was only a matter of time before someone got killed. They could have, and freaking should have, warned people about it. And yes, there should have been gator patrols to capture and or kill all gators on Disney property. To avoid a lawsuit? No. To avoid a needless death! That is simply the decent human thing to do! Now if your using your property a wilderness area where people are paying to see wild dangerous animals, kind of alike a Jurassic Park sort of deal, then fine. Let the gators roam free. But if you are pushing this as a family friendly park, then do your freaking part to make it actually family friendly!

You're going to bust something if you continue on like this.

There were not "multiple gator attacks." There was one attack resulting in injury, and a number of posturing incidents. That does make a difference.

The warning sign that's been put up does not warn people about previous gator attacks, nor that gators can attack, nor the parameters of that gator attack. It's really not much better than the "no swimming" sign.



It says to stay away from the water, and there's a rope fence. If someone gets attacked on the sand, they'll say this was insufficient. If you can't see that, wait a bit longer and it will sadly happen. I'm not sure why they think telling people to stay away from the water will prevent snakebites; that one's just puzzling.

And yes, there should have been gator patrols to capture and or kill all gators on Disney property.

There were precisely such patrols, which inadvertently makes things far more dangerous. There have been attempts to capture the alligators, and release them far from the park, but since gators can travel dozens of miles overland to find a nice new home, it wasn't working. They have killed a number of alligators over the years, but since there is not a biodome over the park, they do not find them all. Particularly during mating season, and particularly after a whole lot of rain, they're going to wander.

The park is advertised as being family-friendly, and it's also advertised as being in Florida. Those things are going to clash where weather and wildlife are concerned, no matter how many precautions are taken.

Disney now has two huge liability issues on its hands: the hand-fed alligators (which was likely responsible for that verbiage making it onto the sign) and the alligator heaven at the old water park that closed after 9/11 (I forget the name).

[Philhelm]

One would think that the child, or at least the parents, would have heard the tick-tock sound of the gator's approach. Unbelievable.

[MelissaWV]

A southwest Florida man is asking officials to inspect a marina for code violations after he says an alligator killed his pit bull on a dimly lit dock.

The attack happened in April in LaBelle when the service dog named Precious jumped in front of Robert Lineburger as the alligator tried to attack him at the Port LaBelle Marina. Lineburger had the dog because he suffers seizures.

"She jumped in front of me. She was roughly 2 to 3 feet away from me when the gator attacked," Lineburger told WPTV.

Lineburger told the station that he didn't see the alligator because of poor lighting, which he calls a commercial code violation. He lives on a boat at the marina.

He's asking Glades County code compliance officers to inspect the marina, adding that he wants something done before another tragedy occurs.

City officials told the station they hoped to send an inspector Friday.

Pro tip: He very likely would not have seen an alligator in dim light (night or twilight) regardless of how well-lit the dock was, but there you go. Signs, lighting, and constant armed patrols. I think that about covers it so far.

[phill4paul]

When I visited Wyoming a Blackbear yearling was hanging around the movie set. Ate a cooler of fresh steaks some idiot left on their cabin porch and broke into the food trailer and demolished a bag of M&M's. There are black bears in Wyoming. Who knew?

[jmdrake]

You're going to bust something if you continue on like this.

There were not "multiple gator attacks." There was one attack resulting in injury, and a number of posturing incidents. That does make a difference.

No. There were multiple attacks. Please read:

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog...rs-kid-gloves/

After the two-year-old boy was killed by a gator at Disney last week a San Diego father who had vacationed there was interviewed by the media and said that he snatched his own young son up after seeing TWO gators racing toward the child at the resort. The environmentalist-in-chief at the resort told him that those gators were “pets” and would not bother anyone. The father was a tad skeptical. One wonders if SHE would have left HER two-year-old son standing there to play with her pet alligators.

Now maybe you only count an attack if it "results in an injury." But from a legal point of view a gator chasing a child counts as an attack. You're great at grammar. Not so much at legal analysis. The legal analysis on wild animal attacks is quite simple.

* If you have no knowledge of dangerous wild animals being on your property then you aren't liable if they attack someone you invited on your property.
* If you do have knowledge of dangerous wild animals being on your property the you are liable unless the people coming on your property have actual knowledge of the dangerous wild animals being there.
* Simply asserting "Well everyone should know their are gators in Florida" isn't enough to free you from liability.
* Putting up signs saying "Warning. Gators have been spotted in these waters." would be enough to free you from liability.

That's the law. I've posted the case law on this to prove it. You can choose to pretend you are the authority on everything and argue all you want to. But if you owned a theme park and you were warned about gators on your property and you took no steps to warn visitors and someone got hurt or killed you would not be able to escape liability with the kinds of arguments you are putting forward. And why would you not want to warn visitors coming to your park? Forget the law. Not telling people about dangers like alligators isn't good for business. Well it's good for business at first because you aren't scaring people away. But then everyone figures out you are a complete $#@! that cares more about profits than safety so they quit going to Disney and go to Seaworld where only the trainers are attacked by dangerous wild animals.

[MelissaWV]

posturing incidents

The part you're missing.

I understand that some of you are under the impression that an alligator even hissing at your child is an attack, but it's not. If two alligators were "chasing" a child with the intent to actually grab it, either that man needs to be in the Olympics or the alligators were engaged in posturing rather than attacking. Or the child was all the way in the water, which you did not mention? That would slow the father down even further. Gators don't generally chase down prey on land, and they tire of trying to sprint. Humans don't run too quickly in water, where the alligators would have easily caught up to the child if they were racing towards it.

The "pet alligator" comment has been mentioned in this thread already... by me. Hand-feeding alligators does make them liable, as does creating a safe breeding ground for alligators in the old water park.

I'm not sure why you're trying to make an argument that a "stay away from the water" sign with alligators and snakes mentioned is enough. If I am walking through a garden area at that resort, and a snake bites me, can I argue that I stayed away from the water and still got bitten? Obviously Disney knows there are snakes, and their sign made me think the snakes were only near the water. Do you see why I say that the signs don't magically remove all liability? The same goes for startling a sunning alligator (on land and not necessarily near the water). I'm not near the water. Disney can say they warned me all they want, but the sign would be very insufficient. It would also not be enough if I lost a few fingers to an alligator snapping turtle.

I've seen gators at Sea World, too, btw. I also have seen sharks in the ocean, scorpions in the desert, bear prints in the woods, and gang members in Baltimore. If I'd been harmed by any of the aforementioned, I would hope my family wasn't awful enough to sue. It wouldn't be my fault for getting harmed, but it also would not be everyone else's fault for not putting a sign up to warn me.

Having a sign up that says "caution: deadly thing that may possibly harm you is present" does not always remove liability from the person putting up the sign. There are a number of regional cases involving "Beware of Dog" signs where the homeowner is still liable for someone lawfully on their property being harmed, despite the sign being up. There are other cases that have found precisely the opposite. Your eye-rolling assertions that this is cut and dry are unfounded.

[jmdrake]

The part you're missing.

I understand that some of you are under the impression that an alligator even hissing at your child is an attack, but it's not. If two alligators were "chasing" a child with the intent to actually grab it, either that man needs to be in the Olympics or the alligators were engaged in posturing rather than attacking. Or the child was all the way in the water, which you did not mention? That would slow the father down even further. Gators don't generally chase down prey on land, and they tire of trying to sprint. Humans don't run too quickly in water, where the alligators would have easily caught up to the child if they were racing towards it.

That's nice. From the legal perspective an assault is "Something that puts someone in reasonable fear of imminent physical contact that is harmful or offensive." While alligators can't be charged under assault, alligator posturing, from a legal perspective, counts as an attack. Disney was on notice that the gators were chasing kids. Whether they wanted to eat them or toss them around like beach balls doesn't matter. Disney should have done more than what they did. Putting up a sign would have cured the liability. They didn't put up the signs so they are liable. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

The "pet alligator" comment has been mentioned in this thread already... by me. Hand-feeding alligators does make them liable, as does creating a safe breeding ground for alligators in the old water park.

Great. So Disney's liable. /thread.

I'm not sure why you're trying to make an argument that a "stay away from the water" sign with alligators and snakes mentioned is enough.

Because the case law that I was going back and for with presence earlier says it's enough. Seriously. He claimed that as long as the animals are wild there is no liability. I found a case where an appeals court in Georgia held a resort liable for a woman being eaten by a gator because the resort knew about the gators on the property. He found the Georgia Supreme Court overruled the appeals court. I pointed out that the reason the Supreme Court overruled the court of appeals was that there was undisputed testimony that the woman that got eaten knew about the gators.

Now apply that to this case. It is undisputed that Disney knew about the gators. But there's no evidence to suggest that the couple knew about the gators. Oh there's all this "Well everybody knows there's gators in Florida." True. But I wouldn't expect gators at a well maintained billion dollar a year resort. Alligators were once hunted to near extinction in Florida. That means they're populations can be controlled. And between this boy getting snatched and his body being found at least 5 gators on Disney property were killed. If that was a nightly occurrence the gators that survived would have their natural fear of humans restored.

If I am walking through a garden area at that resort, and a snake bites me, can I argue that I stayed away from the water and still got bitten?

You are totally misunderstanding the legal framework here. The issue isn't whether or not you were at fault for getting bitten by the snake. The issue is whether or not the landowner knew about the poisonous snakes and didn't tell you about them. If you were warned "There are poisonous snakes in this park" and you decided to come visit the park anyway that would be what is known as an "assumption of risk." Have you ever gone snow skiing and had to sign one of those waivers that says "If you break your leg we're not liable?" Same idea. Even the people telling you when you rent your skis "Ski at your own risk" is enough to put you on notice about the risk. Now you may argue "Well everybody should know about the risk anyway." Maybe. But to be legally covered the person who's inviting you on their property needs to warn you about known risks. And besides, it's simply the nice decent thing to do.

Obviously Disney knows there are snakes, and their sign made me think the snakes were only near the water. Do you see why I say that the signs don't magically remove all liability? The same goes for startling a sunning alligator (on land and not necessarily near the water). I'm not near the water. Disney can say they warned me all they want, but the sign would be very insufficient. It would also not be enough if I lost a few fingers to an alligator snapping turtle.

I see that you simply do not understand the legal argument you are trying to refute.

I will try to explain it again. Presence was right when he said that in general there is no liability if a wild animal attacks someone on your property. That legal principle is called ferae naturae. But ferae naturae doesn't hold if you 1) had actual control of the wild animal (pet, zoo, etc) or 2) knew the wild animal was on your property. Now if you know the wild animal is own your property you still aren't liable if the person who was injured are killed also knew. (In the case of the toddler it would have been enough if the parents knew.)

That's the legal standard. The case law has been posted on this earlier in the thread.

I've seen gators at Sea World, too, btw. I also have seen sharks in the ocean, scorpions in the desert, bear prints in the woods, and gang members in Baltimore. If I'd been harmed by any of the aforementioned, I would hope my family wasn't awful enough to sue. It wouldn't be my fault for getting harmed, but it also would not be everyone else's fault for not putting a sign up to warn me.

Well I hope if you owned Sea World and you knew about gators being on the property and you and set up a nice beach front area near a lagoon where you knew there were gators that you would not be awful enough to do that without putting up warning signs or otherwise warning the people you were inviting to your property! Seriously that would be a sick and godawful thing to do. Being sued isn't the most evil thing a person can do. But needlessly putting children in danger by setting a situation that draws families with children to a known danger and not warning anybody while profiting off of it? That's just evil.

Having a sign up that says "caution: deadly thing that may possibly harm you is present" does not always remove liability from the person putting up the sign. There are a number of regional cases involving "Beware of Dog" signs where the homeowner is still liable for someone lawfully on their property being harmed, despite the sign being up. There are other cases that have found precisely the opposite. Your eye-rolling assertions that this is cut and dry are unfounded.

You do understand that ferae naturae only applies to wild animals right? No, I guess you don't. You are trying to argue about something that you clearly haven't taken the time to research even though all of the answers you need to know how off base your arguments are exist right here in this thread.

Once again, if it's a wild animal then you are generally not liable unless you know specifically that the wild animal is on your property (not just that it might be on it) but you can escape liability if the person injured or killed also knew. And it is cut and dry whether you realize it or not.

[MelissaWV]

Great. So Disney's liable. /thread.

Said it more than a dozen posts ago.

I mentioned the snakes because Disney is acknowledging there are snakes... and the sign clearly implies I won't get bitten if I stay away from the water. This is akin to how people are arguing the sign said "no swimming" but did not mention wading. It's a distinction that can and will be exploited legally and civilly. You didn't actually address the concern about the sign. Disney knows there are snakes, but their signage is misleading. Hell, the alligator signage is misleading.

The threat you are perceiving and labeling as assault simply isn't. If an alligator is hissing at you then the fear that it's also interested in eating you is all in your head. It's likely a mother telling you to get away from her nest.

Once again, if it's a wild animal then you are generally not liable unless you know specifically that the wild animal is on your property (not just that it might be on it) but you can escape liability if the person injured or killed also knew. And it is cut and dry whether you realize it or not.

They're going to need a LOT more signs, then, and so will most people who live anywhere there's even a bit of wildlife. As for the pertaining case law, it's evolving on the matter of golf courses and the like. None of those "inviting beaches" along lakes I posted have any signs warning of wildlife. I didn't notice any signs regarding lightning during my last few trips to park, even though it injures more people than alligators at Florida parks (and there is nothing quite as reliable as lightning in Florida in the summer).

You're wasting your breath on whether it's nice/polite/good business; I agreed. That's why there are idiotic warnings on everything. I've seen a sign next to a wishing fountain that said --- I kid you not --- "do not eat the pennies." It's just good business practice, because some kid choked on a penny out of the fountain and had to be taken to the hospital. It was right under the "children can drown in just a couple of inches of water" sign, because kids were forever trying to swim in the fountain. I know this doesn't compute to the rest of you, but what we're saying is that the warning regarding alligators being in Florida water is about as necessary as a warning against eating pennies.

[jmdrake]

Said it more than a dozen posts ago.

I mentioned the snakes because Disney is acknowledging there are snakes... and the sign clearly implies I won't get bitten if I stay away from the water. This is akin to how people are arguing the sign said "no swimming" but did not mention wading. It's a distinction that can and will be exploited legally and civilly. You didn't actually address the concern about the sign. Disney knows there are snakes, but their signage is misleading. Hell, the alligator signage is misleading.

The threat you are perceiving and labeling as assault simply isn't. If an alligator is hissing at you then the fear that it's also interested in eating you is all in your head. It's likely a mother telling you to get away from her nest.

That same mother that wants you away from her nest could later get hungry. And if there are gator next to an inviting beach that in itself is a problem. Either the nest should be relocated or the beach.

They're going to need a LOT more signs, then, and so will most people who live anywhere there's even a bit of wildlife. As for the pertaining case law, it's evolving on the matter of golf courses and the like. None of those "inviting beaches" along lakes I posted have any signs warning of wildlife. I didn't notice any signs regarding lightning during my last few trips to park, even though it injures more people than alligators at Florida parks (and there is nothing quite as reliable as lightning in Florida in the summer).

You're wasting your breath on whether it's nice/polite/good business; I agreed. That's why there are idiotic warnings on everything. I've seen a sign next to a wishing fountain that said --- I kid you not --- "do not eat the pennies." It's just good business practice, because some kid choked on a penny out of the fountain and had to be taken to the hospital. It was right under the "children can drown in just a couple of inches of water" sign, because kids were forever trying to swim in the fountain. I know this doesn't compute to the rest of you, but what we're saying is that the warning regarding alligators being in Florida water is about as necessary as a warning against eating pennies.

That's nice. But pennies don't just jump up into your throat. I don't think "beware of gators" next to a gator nesting area (using your argument of what this hissing was) is "idiotic." If you think that.....well believe what you want.

But once again, on the legal standard for ferae naturae, pennies don't apply because they are neither natural nor animal. If you don't want to be liable for attacks by wild animals on property that you are inviting others on for commercial use, and you know that you have wild animals on your property that most reasonable people would consider dangerous, whether they are biting people or "hissing" at them or eating them, the way to avoid liability is to warn them. I would do that whether or not there was legal liability. I wouldn't warn people about pennies. And under the legal standard even if these pennies could be thought of as "wild animals", if the people knew the pennies were there, not merely that they might be there because "pennies are everywhere", I still wouldn't be liable.

[MelissaWV]

I'm more familiar with hold harmless clauses and agreements than I'd like to be, by the way, and they're generally negated in courts of law when there's an even slightly substantiated claim of negligence. In your ski example, if I sign my life away and then someone from the resort left something out on the course and I was injured on my way down, the resort does not get to claim that I signed away my right to sue. They can try, but it won't be particularly effective and it tends to turn those hearing the case against the resort.

With your assertion that a sign covers Disney, because it makes the person aware, you're also saying that's the end of the story. If Disney keeps this sign and that fantastic rope fence, but also keeps the alligator breeding ground nearby intact and doesn't work to demolish it, and they also continue to allow rich patrons to feed the alligators from the bungalows just down the shore, then they are actively creating a hazard above and beyond what's natural. The sign is not going to cover that.

The sign is also not going to help if a non-English speaker is injured.
The sign is not going to help if someone goes just past the edge (the fence ends rather oddly right now, with a sign, but beyond that sign there is more alligator-friendly coast).
It's not going to help, btw, in my example of someone finding a snake away from the beach and claiming inadequate or misleading warnings; Disney will find itself liable there, too.

So no, a sign doesn't automatically mean the person can be assumed to be fully aware of the risk, and it doesn't render the person putting up the sign automatically safe from litigation or criminal charges.

Hypothetically, if I put up a sign that says "No Swimming, Steep Drop-Off" and someone takes their toddler in there to wade because I say "No Swimming" and not "No Wading," do you think I should be liable for whatever happens to that toddler in that water? Or do you think it won't matter much to people that want to be outraged?

[jmdrake]

Once again, please research ferae naturae because you clearly have no clue about what you are arguing. Presence was 100% correct in his assertion that in general it gives you great liability protection if a wild animal attacks someone on your property. That protection goes away if you know the wild animal is on your property. That protection comes back if the person injured also knows. That's the legal standard. Period. This ain't about swallowing pennies. It's not about dog bites. It's about dangerous wild animals.

Here is the Georgia Court of Appeals decision on a similar case.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ga-court-...s/1560852.html

We do not view the common law doctrine of animals ferae naturae, therefore, as requiring a departure from Georgia's general principles regarding a landowner's duty to exercise ordinary care in keeping its premises safe.12 To the extent the owners would have us carve out an exception under the doctrine of animals ferae naturae and find that an owner or occupier of land enjoys a blanket immunity from liability for any harm caused by a free wild animal on the owner's land, we decline to do so.13 Although a defendant may be entitled to summary judgment where, as in Williams v. Gibbs, there is no evidence that the owners should have anticipated the presence of the wild animal that injured the plaintiff, there is no issue in this case regarding whether the owners should have anticipated the presence of alligators in their lagoons. Rather, the evidence is undisputed that the owners had actual knowledge that alligators were commonly present throughout the lagoon system. Because the undisputed evidence does not establish as a matter of law that the owners could not reasonably foresee that their lagoons would encourage alligators that would constitute a menace to people using the adjacent common areas and golf courses, see Division 1, supra, the owners are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law under the doctrine of animals ferae naturae.


And here is the Georgia Supreme Court overturning the case.

http://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/.../s11g1263.html

In The Landings Association, Inc. v. Williams, et al., the court of appeals held that the trial court properly denied in part motions for summary judgment brought by The Landings Association, Inc. and The Landings Club, Inc., finding that a question of fact remained as to whether The Landings entities failed, pursuant to the law of premises liability, to take reasonable steps to protect Gwyneth Williams from being attacked and killed by an alligator in the planned residential community and golf club owned and/or managed by The Landings entities. At issue was whether the court of appeals erred in reaching this conclusion. Because the record showed that Williams had equal knowledge of the threat of alligators within the community, the court reversed.


Get it? I know you are well versed in English so it should be clear. If you're an owner and you know about dangerous wild animals on your property you can be liable. If you don't know for certain they are on your property and they just happen to come on, you're not liable. If the victim had "equal knowledge" of the danger you're not liable. Posting signs saying "Gator danger" helps establish the case, should it go to court, that the victim had "equal knowledge." Sure a plaintiff's attorney will argue otherwise but they would have a very hard time doing so.

One more case on the subject. This is the one that establishes the "knowledge" component of ferae naturae.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/19765....%20PETERSBURG

In the instant case there was nothing to indicate that the city had knowledge of a shark hazard. To the contrary, the record shows that the attack at a previously safe beach was unexpected. In the absence of reasonable foreseeability of the danger, there was no duty on the part of the city to guard an invitee against an attack by an animal ferae naturae, or to warn of such an occurrence. Williams v. Gibbs, supra; Rubenstein v. United States

Do you understand what's being said in ^that case? Because the city had no knowledge of a shark hazard they had not duty to guard an invitee against an attack or to warn of an attack. You know what that means? If the city HAD had knowledge of a shark hazard then this court very well WOULD have found a duty on the city to either guard against such an attack or to WARN about such an attack!

Do you understand now?

I'm more familiar with hold harmless clauses and agreements than I'd like to be, by the way, and they're generally negated in courts of law when there's an even slightly substantiated claim of negligence. In your ski example, if I sign my life away and then someone from the resort left something out on the course and I was injured on my way down, the resort does not get to claim that I signed away my right to sue. They can try, but it won't be particularly effective and it tends to turn those hearing the case against the resort.

With your assertion that a sign covers Disney, because it makes the person aware, you're also saying that's the end of the story. If Disney keeps this sign and that fantastic rope fence, but also keeps the alligator breeding ground nearby intact and doesn't work to demolish it, and they also continue to allow rich patrons to feed the alligators from the bungalows just down the shore, then they are actively creating a hazard above and beyond what's natural. The sign is not going to cover that.

The sign is also not going to help if a non-English speaker is injured.
The sign is not going to help if someone goes just past the edge (the fence ends rather oddly right now, with a sign, but beyond that sign there is more alligator-friendly coast).
It's not going to help, btw, in my example of someone finding a snake away from the beach and claiming inadequate or misleading warnings; Disney will find itself liable there, too.

So no, a sign doesn't automatically mean the person can be assumed to be fully aware of the risk, and it doesn't render the person putting up the sign automatically safe from litigation or criminal charges.

Hypothetically, if I put up a sign that says "No Swimming, Steep Drop-Off" and someone takes their toddler in there to wade because I say "No Swimming" and not "No Wading," do you think I should be liable for whatever happens to that toddler in that water? Or do you think it won't matter much to people that want to be outraged?

[MelissaWV]

Posting signs saying "Gator danger" helps establish the case, should it go to court, that the victim had "equal knowledge." Sure a plaintiff's attorney will argue otherwise but they would have a very hard time doing so.

Oh. Okay. So Disney having a sign up that there were alligators would have been sufficient to protect them, even if they had an entire area where they were allowing alligators to breed and get into the lagoon, and knowledge of people feeding them. The sign constitutes equal knowledge and implies that the alligators are hand-fed, park-bred, and unafraid of people.

I notice you didn't cite anything new, especially pertaining to the "steep drop-off" part of my question.

[jmdrake]

Oh. Okay. So Disney having a sign up that there were alligators would have been sufficient to protect them, even if they had an entire area where they were allowing alligators to breed and get into the lagoon, and knowledge of people feeding them. The sign constitutes equal knowledge and implies that the alligators are hand-fed, park-bred, and unafraid of people.

I notice you didn't cite anything new, especially pertaining to the "steep drop-off" part of my question.

You know what? I didn't even bother reading the rest of your last post because it is irrelevant, incompetent and completely immaterial. We're not talking about choking on pennies or cliff diving or pit bulls or other dogs. We're talking about wild animals. And there is a legal standard for dealing with wild animals attacking on someone's property. It's called ferae naturae. And the standard is that if a wild animal attacks someone on your property you are not liable unless you have specific knowledge of the danger. If you do then you have a duty to try to ensure the safety of those you invite onto your property and/or warn them of the danger. If they already have equal knowledge of the danger than the duty is met even if you don't warn them or try to protect them. It's that simple. I think you're just trying to have the last word and you are not trying to have a serious discussion at this point. Fine. Have the last word. That doesn't in the least change the legal standard.

[MelissaWV]

Hypothetically, if I put up a sign that says "No Swimming, Steep Drop-Off" and someone takes their toddler in there to wade because I say "No Swimming" and not "No Wading," do you think I should be liable for whatever happens to that toddler in that water? Or do you think it won't matter much to people that want to be outraged?

That was what I was asking.

You're really on a name-calling binge tonight, btw. I pointed out that hold harmless agreements don't work the way you're saying they do when there are other factors which tip the scales and make it no longer a natural hazard, but you glossed over that. If I say there are alligators in a lake, there's an assumption they are natural alligators, and not hand-fed alligators, and definitely there's an assumption that there's not a huge area under my control where alligators are being allowed to breed and come over to that lake. If those last two things are happening, though, no sign is going to cover me; I've created an unnatural hazard.

I could paste several boring paragraphs of case law, but something tells me you will just roll your eyes, stomp your foot, and admit you didn't read it anyhow.

[jmdrake]

That was what I was asking.

Hypothetically, if I put up a sign that says "No Swimming, Steep Drop-Off" and someone takes their toddler in there to wade because I say "No Swimming" and not "No Wading," do you think I should be liable for whatever happens to that toddler in that water? Or do you think it won't matter much to people that want to be outraged?

You're really on a name-calling binge tonight, btw. I pointed out that hold harmless agreements don't work the way you're saying they do when there are other factors which tip the scales and make it no longer a natural hazard, but you glossed over that. If I say there are alligators in a lake, there's an assumption they are natural alligators, and not hand-fed alligators, and definitely there's an assumption that there's not a huge area under my control where alligators are being allowed to breed and come over to that lake. If those last two things are happening, though, no sign is going to cover me; I've created an unnatural hazard.

I could paste several boring paragraphs of case law, but something tells me you will just roll your eyes, stomp your foot, and admit you didn't read it anyhow.

Okay. Since this hypothetical is apparently soooo important to you I'll answer it. A sign that says "No swimming, steep drop off" is equivalent to a sign that says "No swimming, alligators." Seriously it is. Both signs not only say "No swimming", but they also specifically warn about the danger. I'm thinking you didn't think your analogy all way through. Now I guess you will say I'm "name calling"? Saying your argument is "irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial" is not name calling. I guess you didn't watch Perry Mason?

Anyway, if you wanted to have a correct analogy you should have said "If I had a sign that said No swimming and I didn't warn about a drop off would people be just as upset?" I dunno. Maybe. But the better question is, if the reason you're putting up the "no swimming sign" is because you're worried about the drop off, why not warn about the drop off? Seriously, why do you have this problem with signs that give adequate warnings? Is it because such signs cost a little more money in paint? Regardless of the legal issues I would want anyone I was inviting on my property to be as warned about hidden dangers as possible. Pennies aren't a hidden danger. A drop off you can't see is. Alligators are a hidden danger. If I knew there was a gator on my property and I invited someone on my property and their child got eaten and I hadn't warned them about the gator I would feel like $#@!. Maybe you would sleep just fine at night but I wouldn't. If I was the one eaten by a gator that I didn't know about but the property owner knew about, it wouldn't bother me one bit if my family sued. (Well I'd be dead and I don't believe in ghosts but I did have a ghost that could hang around and communicate it would be high fiving my family).

[MelissaWV]

You're right. Someone should have put up a sign.

Want to take a guess as to where this sign is?



So my hypothetical, which you seem so interested in discounting, isn't really a hypothetical. This sign was up, and parents ignored it and their toddler was wading right near a steep drop-off. While engaged in what was already an action that endangered their child, another danger came up and snatched him away, likely aided by the deep water. That doesn't make it the parents' fault (maybe they were ready to swoop in if the child lost his footing, and felt they were prepared to guard against the drop-off danger), but for some reason no one seems to be pointing out these signs were there.

This is actually a missing piece for me. The story of the body being found yards from shore didn't make sense, but it does now. It's much deeper there, right off shore.

[MelissaWV]

Actually now I am wondering why the new shore doesn't have the steep drop-off mentioned. They seemed to think warning about the drop-off would keep people out of the water and hence out of the jaws of alligators (or giant snakes, which is still perplexing), but that didn't work. Now they have signs about gators and snakes, but what if someone doesn't realize there's a shelf there and falls into suddenly deep water?

[jmdrake]

You're right. Someone should have put up a sign.

Want to take a guess as to where this sign is?



So my hypothetical, which you seem so interested in discounting, isn't really a hypothetical. This sign was up, and parents ignored it and their toddler was wading right near a steep drop-off. While engaged in what was already an action that endangered their child, another danger came up and snatched him away, likely aided by the deep water. That doesn't make it the parents' fault (maybe they were ready to swoop in if the child lost his footing, and felt they were prepared to guard against the drop-off danger), but for some reason no one seems to be pointing out these signs were there.

This is actually a missing piece for me. The story of the body being found yards from shore didn't make sense, but it does now. It's much deeper there, right off shore.

I'm still curious as to why you think this is an issue. I guess to you the words "steep drop off" means "If your feet touch the water you are likely to die." My brain isn't wired that way but perhaps yours is. I can walk with one foot on the sand and one foot in the water and be 100% safe even with a "steep drop off" some 10 feet or less into the water. Not so with a gator.



Okay. That's a crocodile and since you seem so intent on being right you'll probably argue that's different somehow. Here's an alligator jumping into a canoe.



Look! There was a sign warning of gators! How about that?

[jmdrake]

Actually now I am wondering why the new shore doesn't have the steep drop-off mentioned. They seemed to think warning about the drop-off would keep people out of the water and hence out of the jaws of alligators (or giant snakes, which is still perplexing), but that didn't work. Now they have signs about gators and snakes, but what if someone doesn't realize there's a shelf there and falls into suddenly deep water?

Again, why should a steep drop off sign stop someone from putting his foot in the water? Not the same kind of danger even if you want to pretend it is. Steep drop offs don't jump out of the water. Gators do.

[MelissaWV]

I'm still curious as to why you think this is an issue. I guess to you the words "steep drop off" means "If your feet touch the water you are likely to die." My brain isn't wired that way but perhaps yours is. I can walk with one foot on the sand and one foot in the water and be 100% safe even with a "steep drop off" some 10 feet or less into the water. Not so with a gator.



Okay. That's a crocodile and since you seem so intent on being right you'll probably argue that's different somehow. Here's an alligator jumping into a canoe.



Look! There was a sign warning of gators! How about that?

A toddler wading at the shore at night where there is a steep drop-off is not the same as you walking with one foot on the beach.

"Not so with an alligator" is inaccurate. It's highly unusual for alligators to randomly be aggressive and lunge at you on shore with no cover, unless they're hand-fed, which we've already covered over and over again. The video you posted says the same thing. Yes, I'm aware gators can jump and climb --- and do so regardless of signage. I'm the one that posted the video of one climbing a fence, and it's usually safe to assume you'd need an 8+ foot fence designed not to be climbable to keep out critters in this general category (including the aforementioned snakes and turtles). A stone barrier would be preferable, honestly, as I mentioned before.

Look! There IS a sign warning of gators! But not snakes... even though it's way more likely you'd be fending off a water moccasin in that area. Disney's ahead of them on that front. Neither of them seem to care about turtles or fire ants. Frankly, it's amazing any of us are alive.

[MelissaWV]

You can look up "Snakes at Disney" and go through the photos and videos, btw, and realize that's only a matter of time since people are idiots. When that happens, there will be calls for more signs since Disney definitely knows about them, too.



Apparently there HAVE been attacks. Where are you guys on this?

I have posted this story before, but someone suggested I repost it. If this story will help prevent anyone from going through what we did, then it is worth reposting.

Last May 2009, my son was bitten by a water moccasin at CBR. He dropped a toy at the edge of the sidewalk into some landscaping and bent down to pick it up, his feet never leaving the sidewalk. A snake bit him three times on the finger. He spent three days in intensive care and received 12 vials of anitvenin. Thankfully he is fine, all fingers still intact.

Just be aware of your surroundings, keep out of the landscaping, and you should be fine.

CBR = Caribbean Beach Resort

[pcosmar]

"Attractive Hazard" has always had a different meaning to me.

Mel is one.and probably Cajun and definitely Suzanimal .

perhaps the definition needs defining.

[MelissaWV]

"Attractive Hazard" has always had a different meaning to me.

Mel is one.and probably Cajun and definitely Suzanimal .

perhaps the definition needs defining.

lol Well I have signage up.

That's probably the best note on which to bow out and say g'night.

[jmdrake]

A toddler wading at the shore at night where there is a steep drop-off is not the same as you walking with one foot on the beach.

And do you have a topographical map showing just how steep the drop off is and how into the water before the drop off? Do you have evidence that the parents weren't holding the toddler's hand? Maybe you've never done this, but I have waded at lakes where there were drop offs but the drop off didn't start until a good 20 feet into the water. The parents could have waded in with the toddler and seen that there was no drop off danger for how far he was in the water. You're making blind assumptions.

"Not so with an alligator" is inaccurate. It's highly unusual for alligators to randomly be aggressive and lunge at you on shore with no cover, unless they're hand-fed, which we've already covered over and over again. The video you posted says the same thing.

A) It happens.

B) I've only been in close proximity with gators once on an airboat ride. The driver, a professional tour guide, tapped on the alligator with a stick to get it to open its mouth. Then he said "But I wouldn't be doing this at night because they become aggressive and might jump into the boat."

Oh but you know more than a Florida everglades tour guide I suppose.

Look! There IS a sign warning of gators! But not snakes... even though it's way more likely you'd be fending off a water moccasin in that area. Disney's ahead of them on that front. Neither of them seem to care about turtles or fire ants. Frankly, it's amazing any of us are alive.

And how many turtle deaths do you know about? How many turtles had attacked anyone at Disney? Or fire ants or water moccasins for that matter. Disney was on notice because of two reported attacks by gators. If those attacks had not happened then that would be another story. I think you realize how silly your "Well something else could have been a danger" argument is for you to go turtle.

[MelissaWV]

And do you have a topographical map showing just how steep the drop off is and how into the water before the drop off? Do you have evidence that the parents weren't holding the toddler's hand? Maybe you've never done this, but I have waded at lakes where there were drop offs but the drop off didn't start until a good 20 feet into the water. The parents could have waded in with the toddler and seen that there was no drop off danger for how far he was in the water. You're making blind assumptions.

A) It happens.

B) I've only been in close proximity with gators once on an airboat ride. The driver, a professional tour guide, tapped on the alligator with a stick to get it to open its mouth. Then he said "But I wouldn't be doing this at night because they become aggressive and might jump into the boat."

Oh but you know more than a Florida everglades tour guide I suppose.

And how many turtle deaths do you know about? How many turtles had attacked anyone at Disney? Or fire ants or water moccasins for that matter. Disney was on notice because of two reported attacks by gators. If those attacks had not happened then that would be another story. I think you realize how silly your "Well something else could have been a danger" argument is for you to go turtle.

Oh boy this thread again.

The "drop off" comment was based on the signs Disney had up, and additional information that came out after the hysteria regarding every alligator in Florida being out to murder humans had died down. The lagoon was designed for boats and fireworks; there was no need for a gradual drop-off. They put up signs but now you're ignoring them from afar. I find that funny, actually. The "assumption" that the parents weren't holding the kid's hand comes from the parents' own statements. They're lying, too?

I wouldn't be poking an alligator with a stick at night, either. That's what your tour guide said. He didn't say "I wouldn't come out here at night and quietly observe because the alligators will swarm me without provocation and leap into the boat." They're more active at night, and something small splashing in the water is likely going to be tested to see if it's food. That's a far cry from the scenarios people have dreamed up for themselves, likely complete with "Jaws" music and evil alligators bent on eating every human in sight.

I posted about snake attacks at Disney. If you are rolling your eyes over the dangers of snapping turtles, then your tour guide didn't do a particularly impressive job. Fire ants are a distinct hazard that has been documented at Disney multiple times, and it's a matter of time before someone with an allergy doesn't realize they are being bitten until it's too late. This hazard increases with the number of uncontrolled, more natural areas around the parks (like the sandy areas near that lagoon). If we were talking about this a year ago, you could just as easily roll your eyes because no one had been killed by an alligator... yet.

This happened in May just one state over:

Kalyn's mother-in-law, Sheila Rolan, said Kalyn was in Selma with her husband, Brandon, on May 20 preparing for her mother's viewing the following day when fire ants from a hay bale bit her. Kalyn had an allergic reaction to them and died.

"Brandon said she was standing there with a stick talking on the phone," Sheila Rolan said. "She was just beating the hay with the stick, Brandon said, and it stirred up the ants. She ran off the hay stack, and they tried to get her clothes off to get the ants off her."

Alligator snapping turtles:

if provoked they are quite capable of delivering a powerful bite which can easily amputate fingers or cause other significant injuries

There are more posts on Disney message boards than I could possibly add here about snakes well away from the water --- including in pools and rooms. There are bear and bobcat sightings as well, though much more vague. Again, the only reason people aren't freaking out about those is because they haven't been told to.

The parents have decided to go even further and not sue. Frankly, even though it was a horrid accident, they still had a case because the alligators were hand-fed and no longer a natural hazard, but that's their choice. I could see how they wouldn't want to relive this when someone gets posting Tourette Syndrome a month or two after the fact. (Hell in scrolling down after this I saw where I already told you all of this in late June, but you twisted/ignored it to resurrect this thread.) It also doesn't matter, since you've pointed out the warnings have nothing to do with actual danger and everything to do with prior attacks.

So why no warnings about the snakes throughout the park? And why no outrage over the lack of warnings? Because the MSM didn't mention it yet.

[jmdrake]

Oh boy this thread again.

You don't have to reply if you don't want to.

The "drop off" comment was based on the signs Disney had up, and additional information that came out after the hysteria regarding every alligator in Florida being out to murder humans had died down. The lagoon was designed for boats and fireworks; there was no need for a gradual drop-off. They put up signs but now you're ignoring them from afar. I find that funny, actually. The "assumption" that the parents weren't holding the kid's hand comes from the parents' own statements. They're lying, too?

Lyi9ng to? I haven't accused anyone of lying. Get your panties out of a knot. And I mentioned several alternatives where the situation might not have been as dangerous as you claimed regarding the drop off. But guess what? The drop off didn't kill the kid. The gator did. Let's take your argument to its logically absurd and conclusion. If someone has a sign up that says "beware of dog" does that free that person from liability for someone stepping on an exposed electrical wire? Of course not. I know you'd rather ignore the law while talking about the law. Silly but okay that's what you want to do. Disney was on notice about gator attacks. Disney should have put up a sign about gator attacks. Period. End of discussion with a rational person. Disney didn't need to put up a sign about water moccasins or turtles or fire ants or any other wild animal because they were not on notice. There had been no water moccasin, turtle or fire ant attack. Hell, I could side on the side of a lagoon and drape my feet over and get pulled in by a gator. That means that is a danger that is different and distinct from a drop off. That different and distinct danger needed an additional warning that the drop off sign simply doesn't cover. That's the law and it is the law because that is common sense.

I wouldn't be poking an alligator with a stick at night, either. That's what your tour guide said. He didn't say "I wouldn't come out here at night and quietly observe because the alligators will swarm me without provocation and leap into the boat." They're more active at night, and something small splashing in the water is likely going to be tested to see if it's food. That's a far cry from the scenarios people have dreamed up for themselves, likely complete with "Jaws" music and evil alligators bent on eating every human in sight.

Straw man argument. I said nothing about gator being like "jaws" or "evil" or "bent on eating every human in sight." Seriously you are arguing beneath your level now. You said gators don't jump in boats. I gave you evidence that there are times that they might. That's it.

I posted about snake attacks at Disney.

Then next time a snake bites someone at Disney you can start a thread about it. Until then there is no relevance.

If you are rolling your eyes over the dangers of snapping turtles, then your tour guide didn't do a particularly impressive job.

Let's see. How many snapping turtles have drug people who were on dry land or wading in the water to there death? Come on. "Impress" me oh wise one who thinks she knows all. How many? I'll answer my own question for you. Zero. None. Zilch. Hell, I go a step further and do your research for you. This is about the worst I can find for a snapping turtle attack.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/germans...-boy-1.1330393

Note the boy was swimming, not wading, and note that he was injured, not killed. And yet that prompted a much more aggressive response than what Disney did as a result of someone almost being dragged to his death by a gator years before this boy was killed.

Fire ants are a distinct hazard that has been documented at Disney multiple times, and it's a matter of time before someone with an allergy doesn't realize they are being bitten until it's too late. This hazard increases with the number of uncontrolled, more natural areas around the parks (like the sandy areas near that lagoon). If we were talking about this a year ago, you could just as easily roll your eyes because no one had been killed by an alligator... yet.

You're being ridiculous in your comparison. "someone with an allergy" You don't have to be "allergic" to a gator to be killed by one. Someone with an allergy has to take special precaution for himself or herself and keep medicine with himself or herself at all times because one never knows when he/she might ingest peanut butter or be stung by a bee or a wasp or whatever. So yes, I'm still very much rolling my eyes at you and no I would not have rolled my eyes at the suggestion one or even two years ago that Disney needed signs warning about gators. The law doesn't "roll its eyes" at that either.