jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 51,987
Bollocks. I cited case law before proving you are wrong. Here's some more.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...erae+naturae+duty+alligator&hl=en&as_sdt=6,43
Please read it this time! Ferae naturae is not the absolute protection you think it is. It protects you from strict liability. It does not protect you from negligence.
Edit: And just in case you want to restrict this to Florida law....
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...5&q=ferae+naturae+duty+warn&hl=en&as_sdt=4,10
We have found no Florida case dealing with owners' or possessors' liability for injuries inflicted by wild animals in their natural habitat. The rule is that generally the law does not require the owner or possessor of land to anticipate the presence of or guard an invitee against harm from animals ferae naturae unless such owner or possessor has reduced the animals to possession, harbors such animals, or has introduced onto his premises wild animals not indigenous to the locality. Gowen v. Willenborg, Tex.Civ.App. 1963, 366 S.W.2d 695; Williams v. Gibbs, 1971, 123 Ga. App. 677, 182 S.E.2d 164; Restatement of the Law of Torts, Ch. 20, § 508; 3A C.J.S. Animals § 174.
[bIn 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, N.D.Cal. 1972, 338 F. Supp. 654; Cf. Claypool v. United States, S.D.Cal. 1951, 98 F. Supp. 702. Nor was the city under a duty to obtain information from local agencies to determine the frequency with which sharks appeared in and around the beach area, since there was no attack on record in the history of the beach to indicate the necessity for obtaining such information.[/b]
Please understand what's being said here. Because there had been no shark attacks before is the reason there was no duty. But there had been gator attacks at Disney.
Last edited:
Seriously your argument is retarded. In the case you cited there was testimony that the woman who had gotten eaten by an alligator knew there was an alligator in the lake she was swimming in and she went swimming anyway. In this case there is no similar testimony. And if Disney had spent as much time and money making sure there were no alligators in the lagoons on their property as they do making sure no guns come on their property, or at least making sure the gators just don't crawl up to the shallows where some kid might be wading, then this incident wouldn't have happened. Yeah MelissaMW posted the cute pic of the gator climbing the fence. Guess what? If someone sees a gator climbing a fence he has time to grab his kid and run the hell away! And how much would adding a picture of a gator to a "no swimming sign" cost? Why wouldn't Disney do that? Neither you nor any of the other Disney defenders want to answer that question. Captain obvious says "Because they didn't want to scare away tourists." So the risk of tourists getting eaten was outweighed by the concern of lost profits from tourists possibly deciding "Hmmmmm....I'll go on rides in the Magic Kingdom by I think we'll stay somewhere else."
