"Attractive hazard" [Orlando Gator attack]

New Disney sign proposal:

"Apex prexators such as aligators and anacondas live in Florida. For your safety, use caution near water. No swimming or wading. Do not feed the animals. Do not feed your children to the animals. Enjoy your stay in Florida."
 
Under contract theory, which supposedly libertarians subscribe to, Disney is indeed obligated to warm people about clear and present danger.

[]

Disney had a clear and present danger on their property that they didn't warn people about for fear it would tarnish their "family friendly" image.

You have an obligation to warn about artificial hazards such as an unsteady structure or live wires that you posses.
You have no legal obligation to warn about feral animals on your land.

common law term for these creatures as ferae naturae

Whine and bitch all you want about this. But the current law is that if you know about dangerous wild animals on your property and you invite the public on your property, especially if you're doing the inviting for profit, and you don't warn the public about the danger, you are liable.

no letting your child play near a Florida lagoon at 9PM is an assumption of risk


Torts and Personal Injury Law

By Cathy Okrent

G40LSxq.png

jb7XVqx.png

Ar8NQfz.png

Kq742Tw.png

https://books.google.com/books?id=F...q=nature is wild law liability common&f=false
 
Last edited:
Yes... Indeed there are such scenarios...

If I build a home... and leave a window loosely secured in the building... quit work for the day... then some kid comes up "trespassing" on the job site and the window falls out of its hole and crushes him...

"Attractive Hazard" (specifically that was the case where the term was coined)

If I'm building a home and I leave a power tool plugged in when I leave the site and some kid is injured....

"Attractive Hazard"

If I'm building a home... and some kid comes and trespasses... the site is safe and secure... but after dark and a lion tiger or bear eats him:

$#@! happens... if you don't want bad $#@! to happen to your kid.. then keep your eyes on them and use common sense. I'm only liable for artificial hazards and FREE WILD ANIMALS on my property are not artificial; it doesn't matter if they're in my artificial pond... pool... or hotel room. If I didn't take action to make that wild animal MY PROPERTY then it is not MY LIABILITY.

So, in other words, you could harbor, feed and let wild animals use your property all the time and it's ok, but the second you CALL that animal your property, then suddenly it's your liability. Those gators had been on the Disney property for decades and the only reason you don't think they were liable is because they weren't called pet gators. What, exactly, is the difference between a pet and a wild animal?

And also, I'm sure you're aware that these guests we're talking about are not trespassers.
 
Last edited:
So, in other words, you could harbor, feed and let wild animals use your property all the time and it's ok, but the second you CALL that animal your property

You don't "let" wilding things do wild things... wild things do wild things of their own accord.
You don't harbor wild things... they come and go of their own free will.
Disney didn't feed gators. Its illegal in Florida. Nowhere have they endorsed such behaviour.
 
So, in other words, you could harbor, feed and let wild animals use your property all the time and it's ok, but the second you CALL that animal your property, then suddenly it's your liability. Those gators had been on the Disney property for decades and the only reason you don't think they were liable is because they weren't called pet gators. What, exactly, is the difference between a pet and a wild animal?

And also, I'm sure you're aware that these guests we're talking about are not trespassers.

Actually there are allegations that they were called just that by some of the staff when confronted about the hand-feeding, which is very likely why this one had no fear of humans and associated them with food. This is part of why I keep mentioning a barrier instead of signs; if they've been hand-feeding them the signs will do absolutely nothing to avert another injury or death, but they'll help cover Disney's behind in a lawsuit. It's not that there's gators in the lake. It's that there's now hand-fed alligators in the lake.

New Disney sign proposal:

"Apex prexators such as aligators and anacondas live in Florida. For your safety, use caution near water. No swimming or wading. Do not feed the animals. Do not feed your children to the animals. Enjoy your stay in Florida."
[sic]

I haven't seen any anacondas, but we have a pretty extensive python problem, and we'll develop a crocodile problem soon. It's not just Florida with these issues. Yellowstone's having a banner year for animal "incidents." Nasty shark attacks are on the news quite a bit, though some of them don't deserve to be (the woman who was taking a selfie with a little shark out of the water and it attached to her arm before it died? I applauded that little fish.).

* * *

Only mildly related, but I now have a snake civil war around my house. North end is corn snakes, south end is black racers. Wish it were the other way around :(
 
I don't think anyone has said they should be FORCED to put a sign there (I didn't) but I DO think it's bad business and had I owned the place, I would've had it on a sign.

It helps me to lay it out and see the natural conclusion in black and white. I apologize if it seemed like a blanket accusation or something. I find a lot of my posts are like me having a one sided conversation with society that someone has overheard. :o lol

I've sorta seen both sides of the sign thing, so in the interest of better understanding where a person's attitude comes from concerning this, I offer up some of my experiences with "danger", and signage, all presented in a confusing, disjointed manner...:D

I have no idea why the insurance risk management crew wasn't on top of this situation.
I understand signs can help families. I'm also extremely sensitive when it comes to things that can lull people asleep, tons of signage is no substitute for a family or individual paying attention to their surroundings.

A big trip for me as a kid was a family vacation driving from MN to Key West. This was pre Epcot in the early 80's. My folks, and older sister shared the driving duties and drove straight through, our first actual motel stop was inside FL somewhere at nighttime.

That first motel was a dive, it looked like murder central, and for all we knew... We slept in our clothes on top of the bedding and laughed it off because it was definitely affordable. We still laugh about it 30+ years later.

Point being, our young, pasty white family of four from MN, pre-internet days, had the "alligator danger" family safety briefing that night, at that hotel, while we were surveying their crappy outdoor pool- not much to see. We had the conversation before we noticed their "beware of alligators" sign. There was a big ditch/pond about 15 yards from the chain-link fenced pool that we noticed just barely visible from the pool area lights, and our imaginations were running wild. My mom has always had a morbid fascination and respect for all things wild and scary, and we benefited. That simple, quick, family safety briefing got our minds right as we entered Florida gator country.:)

We did do Disney World that trip, and we really had no desire to get close to any of their lake-like water features, more out of practicality rather than safety -I remember they had some single person motor boats you could rent for some ridiculous price. We were on a schedule, so it was see the main Disney attractions and move on. We did do Cypress Gardens as well, and we were wary of any body of water we walked past that looked like it could hide an alligator -even with those Belles distracting us. (distracting me lol)

We knew about alligators in FL before we left our MN house, Everglades & history, Live And Let Die, Mutual Of Omaha's Wild Kingdom.lol We knew that: Fenced pool = pretty safe (and we had heard stories about THAT as well-gators getting into pool stories from MN friends/family who had heard it from someone else), all other water, salt or fresh, can kill you in FL.

People have been know to survive and thrive without signs. People have been known to die, while ignoring clear signage.

There have been two times in my adult life in HI where I might've done well to read a sign or two warning about nature -both times I should have known better, and I went with "no reasoning" anyway.:o One instance swimming in rough surf (I had no business being out there), and one instance riding my enduro motorcycle off road. (I almost purposely drove over a berm to see what was coming up next -it was a 200' cliff). Doh!:o I still remember that feeling. It was a "cliffy" area, but there was no clear indication what lay beyond that specific berm.

My heart goes out to your family susano, and of course for your niece those years ago, yet my family would not be part of any kind of judgement that dismissed any kind of trespassing -ever. No matter what the "law" allows. It is the property owner's call.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but "attractive hazard"? Am I the only one who reads that as simply "temptation"?

My sister and I were taught as kids (I remember it as a four year old), that if we got hurt or killed doing something we shouldn't be doing (trespassing or stealing), too bad. It appears harsh, but it absolutely protects other's property rights without cops, and that healthy respect for other people's stuff, has absolutely helped me avoid making some really dangerous choices in my life.

Vague liability issues are really lost on myself, a dumb Christian, acutely aware of my own short comings, acutely aware of my own frail, earthly life, and believing no one owes me compensation for something I have set in motion myself. Again, I mean no offense, and I certainly didn't mean to ramble on for so long -but again, for better understanding of where some might be coming from.
 
"Beware" signs are a bad idea. For instance, if my dog bites someone, then, the judge is going to ask if I had a "Beware of Dog" sign. So, then, as soon as I say yes, I have a "Beware of Dog" sign, the judge will rule based on the notion that because I have a sign saying to beware of my dog, then, I am aware that my dog is violent and will attack people. I must be aware as well as liable if I put up a sign warning peple to beware of him. Well...according to the judge anyway.

Of course, I would never put up a "Beware of Dog" sign. That would be dumb to do. But lots of random dolts do. Whackobirds.

That said, if anyone has a "Beware of Dog" sign, you likely would do better to take it down. That way, you can always say that your animal isn't aggressive/dangerous. You can't very well say that it isn't dangerous if you have a stupid sign in your window telling mofos to beware of the lil feller. You know?
 
Last edited:
Signs are a bad idea. For instance, if my dog bites someone, then, the judge is going to ask if I had a "Beware of Dog" sign. So, then, as soon as I say yes, I have a "Beware of Dog" sign, the judge will rule based on the notion that because I have a sign saying to beware of my dog, then, I am aware that my dog is violent and will attack people. I must be aware as well as liable if I put up a sign warning peple to beware of him. We...according to the judge anyway.

Of course, I would never put up a "Beware of Dog" sign. That would be dumb to do. But lots of random dolts do. Whackobirds.

A lot of people with those signs don't even have a dog, though :p cheap security system.
 
"Beware" signs are a bad idea. For instance, if my dog bites someone, then, the judge is going to ask if I had a "Beware of Dog" sign. So, then, as soon as I say yes, I have a "Beware of Dog" sign, the judge will rule based on the notion that because I have a sign saying to beware of my dog, then, I am aware that my dog is violent and will attack people. I must be aware as well as liable if I put up a sign warning peple to beware of him. Well...according to the judge anyway.

Of course, I would never put up a "Beware of Dog" sign. That would be dumb to do. But lots of random dolts do. Whackobirds.

That said, if anyone has a "Beware of Dog" sign, you likely would do better to take it down. That way, you can always say that your animal isn't aggressive/dangerous. You can't very well say that it isn't dangerous if you have a stupid sign in your window telling mofos to beware of the lil feller. You know?


I forget the name of the legal principle... but this is very true... if you put up signs you can actually incur greater liability than no sign at all.

It gets into a give a mouse a cookie scenario...

If you knew it was bad enough to put up a sign, then why didn't you put up two signs?
If you knew it was bad enough to put up a 10' sign... why didn't you put up a 20' sign?
If you knew it was bad enough to require a sign... why didn't you post it in 20 languages?
 
Last edited:
"Beware" signs are a bad idea. For instance, if my dog bites someone, then, the judge is going to ask if I had a "Beware of Dog" sign. So, then, as soon as I say yes, I have a "Beware of Dog" sign, the judge will rule based on the notion that because I have a sign saying to beware of my dog, then, I am aware that my dog is violent and will attack people. I must be aware as well as liable if I put up a sign warning peple to beware of him. Well...according to the judge anyway.

Of course, I would never put up a "Beware of Dog" sign. That would be dumb to do. But lots of random dolts do. Whackobirds.

That said, if anyone has a "Beware of Dog" sign, you likely would do better to take it down. That way, you can always say that your animal isn't aggressive/dangerous. You can't very well say that it isn't dangerous if you have a stupid sign in your window telling mofos to beware of the lil feller. You know?

Yup. Our sign just says Bulldog Boulevard. Take from it what you will.
 
I didn't see a video about a crocodile. I saw some about alligators, including a few I posted.

You mentioned the billions that Disney has earlier in the thread, and are the only one to bring up the concept that they seem to have "enough money" to put up signs.


I said they are a multi billion dollar operation so I found it unfathomable that they, with their legal and insurance people, didn't cover the alligator danger by warning guests. Some brochures at check in, signs aren't expensive. Not having done these things will be.

The croc video I just posted because we were talking about man eating reptiles and I wanted to share it because it's so amazing (and, btw, I like that video of the gator climbing the fence!). Here it is:

 
The argument for violation of libertarian principles is fraud. People pay for a product that Disney advertises in a carefully crafted manner to suggest a lavish, relaxing experience. Even right on the front page of the hotel's website they say you can "Bask on the white-sand beach"- no mention of alligator hazards in the marketing literature.

https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/resorts/grand-floridian-resort-and-spa/#

disney.PNG


Their web site even has a link for "Guest Safety" - and there is no mention of alligator hazards there either.

IMO, the concept of having a sandy beach as a feature of the resort was a bad idea. Someone at Disney just thought about how they could image and market this without thinking about the real world consequences.

And then there is this...

 
You don't "let" wilding things do wild things... wild things do wild things of their own accord.
You don't harbor wild things... they come and go of their own free will.
Disney didn't feed gators. Its illegal in Florida. Nowhere have they endorsed such behaviour.

So if they did feed the gators, then they would be liable? Your comment doesn't draw a clear line. You say there is no concept of "letting" wild animals do things, which is baloney because we've been letting and not letting wild things do as they please since the dawn of man. And by harbor, I mean make some kind of accomodations on your property for it and let, yes LET it use those accomodations without interference. I used to do that with my pets and I still considered them pets. Why does it matter whether the animals are legally your property or not if you know they're there? Sounds to me like you're exploiting a legal definition loophole to justify your theory. The concept of "letting" is very applicable here because it's not just a blanket statement. We're talking about your property, to which you can choose to give access to animals or not.
 
Last edited:
So if they did feed the gators, then they would be liable? Your comment doesn't draw a clear line. You say there is no concept of "letting" wild animals do things, which is baloney because we've been letting and not letting wild things do as they please since the dawn of man. And by harbor, I mean make some kind of accomodations on your property for it and let, yes LET it use those accomodations without interference. I used to do that with my pets and I still considered them pets. Why does it matter whether the animals are legally your property or not if you know they're there? Sounds to me like you're exploiting a legal definition loophole to justify your theory. The concept of "letting" is very applicable here because it's not just a blanket statement. We're talking about your property, to which you can choose to give access to animals or not.


letting
legally involves sale of usage.... you can use my property in exchange for something extracted

let is legally equal to "hindrance"; you can be here if you....

If Disney was harvesting alligator hides... from alligators they "let" reside I could see some liability.
If Disney was conducting alligator tours... from alligators they "let" reside I could see some liability.
If Disney was feeding the aligators as an attraction of sort; making "pets" of them... I could see some liability.

But Disney was doing none of that; they were not "hindering" the alligators on their property... therefore they were not "letting" alligators on their property


Disney, in legal parlance, simply "suffered" (in the sustain loss while abstaining from action sense) alligators on their property; they abstained from preventative action because they have no legal duty to take action against wild beast as is an age old common law principle

Likewise... Disney "suffered" guests who fed alligators on their property. And just as you have no legal duty to arrest people for not wearing their seat belt... Disney has no legal duty to arrest guests for feeding alligators.



let - suffer - against one's will
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/let
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/suffer
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/against+one's+will



With regard to your notion of "harbor" you would be in a position to prove that Disney created ponds where no water previously stood with the purpose of permitting alligators in that water that did not previously inhabit the area. But the fact of the matter is that alligators inhabited that land prior to Disney World existing and the land held bodies of water prior to Disney World existing; as does most of central Florida. So the fact that Disney may have changed the coastline of their lagoon does not mean they created a habitat that previously did not exist.

As a verb, to afford lodging to, to shelter, or to give a refuge to. To clandestinely shelter, succor, and protect improperly admitted Aliens.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/harbor

Another key element of "harboring" something is the fact that it is alien to the location and being actively abetted. Here again... Disney has taken no affirmative action to abet; and the creatures are naturalized in the environment both inside and outside of the park.
 
Last edited:
Bryan - You can still "bask on the beach" with minimal risk, though now you'll be doing it in the shadow of their new signs.

Notice how they added snakes to the signage, too? That's because there are probably more snakes in that little crescent of pond than there are alligators. Since people don't know Disney doesn't have anti-alligator magic, they might not realize the snakes are there as well.

I don't know how to appropriately convey that there are alligators everywhere in Florida. I'm not shocked by the Splash Mountain video, except that accompanying articles point out guests where throwing popcorn to the alligator so it could eat it.

There are at least 1,000 things not on the brochure or website about safety. The signs and the "fences" (which are totally not sufficient to keep anyone in/out as they are currently built) are not going to get them out of the woods on this one. Wait until some turtle snaps someone's fingers off.

c7e28500_Swamp_People_Roger_Rivers_snapping_turtle.jpeg
 
Simple solution..........

Wall off cities and keep the inhabitants in.

Sucks for the family that lost a kid but one can't realistically expect a business to keep wildlife out.

If people want "safe" buy a bubble.

Those of us who live in the country understand our surroundings, when urbanites leave their environment it's up to them to educate themselves and protect their kids.

I'd be good turning my kid loose in any rural setting but would never turn him loose in a city without knowledge of his surroundings.

Disney will settle this out of court to avoid more press but I doubt they'd lose at trial....
 
You have an obligation to warn about artificial hazards such as an unsteady structure or live wires that you posses.
You have no legal obligation to warn about feral animals on your land.

common law term for these creatures as ferae naturae

Gator poop! I already posted the case law that shows you don't know what you are talking about. Ferae naturae does not apply when you know about the hazard!

Hell, here is more case law on the subject. In this case ferae naturae did not bar a claim of negligence even when there had been no previous alligator attack. In the case of Disney there had been at least two previous reported gator attacks.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...erae+naturae+duty+alligator&hl=en&as_sdt=6,43

Please read this time! I get tired of correcting you on this and you not paying attention.

An animal ferae naturae is a wild animal, that is, one that is not classed as "domesticated." Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009); Candler v. Smith, 50 Ga.App. 667, 179 S.E. 395 (1935). So long as the owner or possessor of land does not own or keep an indigenous wild animal, as in this case, "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." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Williams v. Gibbs, 123 Ga. App. 677, 678, 182 S.E.2d 164 (1971) (physical precedent only).[11] In that case, a service station patron was injured when she encountered a poisonous snake on a sidewalk leading to the service station's restroom. Id. at 677, 182 S.E.2d 164. The patron claimed that the proprietor breached a duty to keep 300*300 the grass mowed short around the building in order to prevent snakes from coming upon the sidewalk. Id. We held that the owner's failure to keep the grass near the sidewalk mowed short "could only be negligence if the [owner] should have foreseen that there were snakes or other hazards in the area which would be encouraged by the grass and which would constitute a menace to persons using the sidewalk." Id. at 678, 182 S.E.2d 164. If, on the other hand, the owner, "in the exercise of ordinary care, could not have discovered the condition that proximately caused the [patron's] injury, it breached no duty of care owed to the [patron]." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Id. The owner testified that no one had seen a snake on the premises during the six years he had owned the property, and there was no evidence to the contrary. Id. The undisputed evidence established as a matter of law, therefore, that the presence of a snake on the sidewalk was not reasonably foreseeable. Id. In the absence of knowledge of such a danger, we held, there was no duty on the part of the owner to keep the grass mowed short in order to protect visitors against that hazard and, therefore, the owner was not liable for the patron's injuries. Id.

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.




no letting your child play near a Florida lagoon at 9PM is an assumption of risk

Bollocks! Had their been signs saying "Beware of gators" that would have been an assumption of risk. The idea that someone visiting Florida from another state should know about all of the risks of Florida, especially in a theme park that plays itself off as family friendly is just asinine.
 
Last edited:
The argument for violation of libertarian principles is fraud. People pay for a product that Disney advertises in a carefully crafted manner to suggest a lavish, relaxing experience. Even right on the front page of the hotel's website they say you can "Bask on the white-sand beach"- no mention of alligator hazards in the marketing literature.

https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/resorts/grand-floridian-resort-and-spa/#

View attachment 5039


Their web site even has a link for "Guest Safety" - and there is no mention of alligator hazards there either.

IMO, the concept of having a sandy beach as a feature of the resort was a bad idea. Someone at Disney just thought about how they could image and market this without thinking about the real world consequences.

And then there is this...



Exactly! Disney is passing itself off as a safe family friendly place. If it isn't a safe family friendly place then it should change its advertising.
 
Back
Top