Why not include a warning about the gators? Something as simple as:
“WARNING: No swimming or wading in water. Keep children away form the edge. The possibility for dangerous alligators exists!”
It could have saved that poor kids life. Poor little guy. I don’t want to event think about what those parents are going through. 
There was some politically correct poisoning of the well there. People were criticizing the parent before they knew the parent’s ethnicity. Someone came in the thread and said “oh, she was black. That explains it!” No. People didn’t know at first. The zoo incident and the alligator incident are different in so many ways they really don’t compare.
It’s common for alligators to drag their prey down to the bottom and leave them there for awhile.
Is nobody else hearing the voice of Ian Malcolm?
The whole swimming thing is a red herring. The gator could have just as easily pulled the kid off the beach.
Disney could have easily added a funny graphic of Captain Hook running from the Crocodile in Peter Pan to their “No Swimming” signs and it would click in people’s minds without needing a “scary” warning sign.
I don’t know about that… I’m of the mind that warning signs should be scary.
I think it’s partly just random tragedy, and partly Disney’s fault. They created a pretty man-made beach. They posted “no swimming”, but that doesn’t mean “don’t get close to the water”, nor even “no wading”.
I stayed at a hotel in Africa near a crocodile-infested river. It was an expensive luxury hotel that no doubt preferred not to frighten its guests. It had clear signs warning guests stay away from the river and to watch for crocodiles. Now, crocodiles are a lot more dangerous to humans than Florida alligators, mostly due to behavioral reasons. (Alligators are lazy and mostly are uninterested in people.) But still, how hard would it be to put up a decorative fence a couple feet out from the water with a sign saying “don’t cross this fence, there are alligators in the water”?
Either the fence or the sign would likely have prevented this tragedy.
Very sad.
Yeah, as a parent of young kids, a sign that says “No Swimming” means that my kids can go right up to the edge of the water and look for fish and stuff. A sign that says “Alligators in water” means that my kids aren’t going anywhere near the fucking edge of the water. Disney blew it if there is no very, very prominent indication about alligators in that water.
I agree of course, but now that I think about it, I bet there’s a tourist parent out there who would see a “alligators in water” sign and think, “well if they’re there, it must be safe to pet them, right? They’re probably specially trained alligators.”
Never underestimate the power of stupid.
If the alligators are killed swiftlyand humanely, which I believe they are, then euthanasia, which means an easy or ‘good’ death, is the correct term.
At the very least it should have Captain Hook on it.
Regards,
Shodan
Right, but here is where we get into the “reasonable person” standard. I agree with others. When I see a sign that says “No Swimming” I think that it is because there might be squishy vegetation underneath, the host of other reasons that have been mentioned, or that possibly the resort just plain didn’t want you swimming in that water for aesthetics, much in the same way you cannot swim in a fountain in a public park, even though it is 100% safe to do so.
As I said, I lived in Florida for five years so I know how invasive alligators can be in residential areas. But when I am staying at a prestigious resort, that has put beach chairs and cabanas near the water to make it look like an ocean, I admit that I wouldn’t have thought of alligators. If I am renting a cabin on Lake Okeechobee, then I believe that it IS up to the renters to know the area and look out for wildlife. As another poster said, at a resort hotel, I am not on guard for wildlife. I mean, if there is a python in my room, should the response be: “Hey, you knew it was Florida. There are pythons there, dumbass!”?
Maybe that makes me an idiot for not expecting gators there, but I think it is certainly reasonable to think so. And this is from a guy who lived in Florida. What about someone who is unfamiliar with the area? If I stay at a resort anywhere in the country/world, should a reasonably prudent person check the internet for dangerous wildlife? I just don’t think that is to be expected of people.
Further, Disney is in the superior position with this knowledge. They know that there are gators in the water, and even though the risk is small, they can easily warn guests in a calm and rational manner.
I don’t think anyone, Disney included, thought that an alligator attack was something that was likely to happen. I know alligators are roaming about Walt Disney World, and I would not have thought there was a danger at being at the water’s edge. My husband said, there’s no way he’d touch that water, but it has nothing to do with alligators. That lagoon is filthy. I don’t blame the parents at all for letting their kid near the water, but getting in the water was unwise (for non-alligator reasons).
Similarly, I don’t really blame Disney either. Alligator attacks on humans are very rare. Prior to this event, there wasn’t any reason to think the beach was a problem. All the blaming is relying on hindsight.
Maybe pipe in some tick-tock sound effects.
You would obviously attach ticking clocks to all the gators. That’s how you’d know they’re near.
Colorado has bears and there is no shortage of signs warning you of that fact in places like RMNP.
It is interesting to see two diametrically opposed viewpoints emerge:
(1) There hasn’t ever been any other alligator attacks in that location for years and years. Therefore, the hotel ought not to be taken to task for attempting to prevent this one; it should have no obligation to warn against a possibility that remote.
Versus:
(2) This is Florida. Everyone knows water is likely to have alligators in it. Therefore, the guests ought reasonably to have known such an attack was possible, and taken steps to avoid it. The hotel can’t be faulted for not warning them of the obvious.
Which is it - a vanishingly remote possibility, or an obvious peril?
My take is its the first - with a dose of the second which is “you have to have some common sense” - though in this case, I don’t think the parents showed any real lack of judgement (the people feeding the alligators, or treating them like some sort of tame attraction - those people have no common sense).
Now, I suspect Disney will make changes - no more movies on the beach - signage near the beach that warns of wildlife - probably materials at check in that mentions not only alligators, but poisonous snakes (which no one will read, but will cover their butts), but I also suspect that with Disney’s attorneys and Florida’s laws on this, this will be settled quietly out of court for a lot less than people imagine.
I know nothing about Florida laws, but I suspect that the potential for a trial creating continual bad publicity may be a sufficient threat to induce Disney into a quick (and thus relatively generous) settlement. Also, if the case goes to a jury trial, there is the risk of jury sentiment going against the big corporation.
I think my comments have rejected both viewpoints and my belief is that it is in the middle. Yes, alligator attacks are a rather unlikely event. The hotel should not be required to put razor wire around the lake, nor is there a need to not have the beach area that it constructed. It does not need to scare the guests into not staying at the resort, or to make it seem like the whole place is infested with man eating alligators like a thing out of a horror movie.
However, it owes a guest who is paying $400/night the assurance that it is does what is reasonably necessary to remove alligators from the resort area. It owes the guests a stern warning that the lake area is a potentially dangerous place for pets or very young children who get close to the water’s edge. Especially when it takes steps to make it not look like a Florida lake/swamp but an ocean beach.
Simply saying “No Swimming” does not alert a reasonable person that by swimming he may be eaten by an alligator. The lake closest to me has a myriad of “No Swimming” areas even though swimming is perfectly safe. It has to do with boat launching, private property rights, and a financial desire to make the patrons pay money to swim in the designated area.
I think Disney is liable here for failing to warn the guests against a known danger concealed on its property.
Several people have said that the reason there were no “Danger: Alligator” signs was that Disney didn’t want to scare the guests. Has Disney actually made any official statement to that effect? Because if they had, that looks to me like a 100% admission of guilt. If there are people who would be scared by the sign but not scared without the sign, that means that there are people who don’t know about the danger. If that’s Disney’s stated reason for not having the sign, then that means that Disney knows that there are people who don’t know about the danger. And given that they haven’t put up the sign, that means that they want people to remain ignorant about the danger.
If you make an effort to ensure that someone doesn’t know about a danger, and then someone falls victim to the danger, then you’re responsible.