How much money should the parents of that boy who was eaten by a gator get from Disney?

What if there were several reasons aside from gator risk that the no swimming sign was there? Perhaps they didn't want to provide life guarding services and perhaps the quality of the water was generally poor and not fit for human contact. Maybe there are several other reasons I'm not aware of and the gator risk is actually near the bottom of the list. How many reasons are they obligated to list on the sign?

Sparky polastry wrote:

What if there were several reasons aside from gator risk that the no swimming sign was there? Perhaps they didn't want to provide life guarding services and perhaps the quality of the water was generally poor and not fit for human contact. Maybe there are several other reasons I'm not aware of and the gator risk is actually near the bottom of the list. How many reasons are they obligated to list on the sign?

Just one, warning alligators may be in the water.

Ababa ban wrote:

Lastly, for those that say everyone knows about gators, this is simply not true. There are countless examples of tourists who are otherwise very educated not knowing a thing about gators. I myself would never expect to see a gator at a resort but that is likely because I don't live anywhere near gator country.

I live in bear country. Do all of you know every risk that bears pose, and every place you should watch for bears? I doubt it.

Disney is liable. Bottom line.

If you travel to Florida and are unaware of gators, then you deserve to be on the wrong end of natural selection. THAT is bottom line. Florida is synonymous with gators just like Maine/Lobster, Idaho/Potato, Texas/Guns, etc. It seems like Florida is consistently in the news for some monstrous gator in someones back yard, on a golf course, or just walking down the street. Obviously there is going to be gators in a lake. Did the family not think there were fish in there too? I live in New England and have never travelled south of Massachusetts, but even I know Florida is gator territory. I don't even watch TV or pay much attention to the news. If someone was "very educated" they would have common sense.

If someone travels to bear country and knows nothing about bears guess what? They probably won't have a pleasant encounter when they meet a bear. Who's fault is that? From your post it seems like you would blame us for not knowing every risk that bears pose and every place you should watch for bears. Are you liable when I get attacked by a bear for not informing me enough?

Are you actually stupid? He wasn't galavanting about in the wild and got attacked. This kid was at DISNEYLAND.

Metric Miler wrote:

Are you actually stupid? He wasn't galavanting about in the wild and got attacked. This kid was at DISNEYLAND.

Do you not think there are fish in that lake?

Also which of the following do you consider wilderness: back yard, golf course, street. None? I would consider a lake to be more "wild" than all of those. I'm pretty sure gators do not care about Disneyland.

I have taken my family to Disney at least once a year for the last 12 years. We have stayed multiple times in all the different resorts on the shores of the Seven Seas Lagoon where the child was killed. I've crossed that lagoon in small boats more times than I can count.

I have never seen an alligator in there. And until this happened I never even thought about gators in there. Disney does hospitality exceedingly well. It's a fantasy resort. They think of everything so that their guests don't have to worry about this kind of stuff.

But in this instance, they failed. And they will pay dearly. I'm guessing the award will be in the tens of millions if not higher.

troof wrote:

Metric Miler wrote:

Are you actually stupid? He wasn't galavanting about in the wild and got attacked. This kid was at DISNEYLAND.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBPqksG9nbA

Do you not think there are fish in that lake?

Also which of the following do you consider wilderness: back yard, golf course, street. None? I would consider a lake to be more "wild" than all of those. I'm pretty sure gators do not care about Disneyland.

True, gators don't care about Disneyland. Hence it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the park keepers to ensure the safety of the laying customers staying there. Fences and signs are a must.

If you were attacked by a bear in Wal-Mart would you say "oh well, bear's don't care about Wal-Mart, my fault for being so close to their habitat during mating season". Or would it in fact be the shops fault for not having anti-bear measures, knowing that there are bears all around?

I'll put this another way. The only reason the kid visited the lake is because Disneyland built it and made a holiday resort around it. It is directly their fault that there are alligators in Disneyland at all, and it is partly their fault that the family saw Disneyland as a fun and safe place to take the children. And it is a violation of the park's responsibility to keep customers safe whilst enjoying the resort by allowing those alligators (which they seemingly were aware of) to get close enough to the customers to attack.

I'd throw my 5month old into alligator pit for $1M. I was gonna have an abortion anyways. Might as well give birth and throw it away for paycheck for my 8 months of pain and suffering.

Doesn't someone have to be negligent though? There was a no swimming sign. Isn't that a way of saying stay out of the water?

troof wrote:

. . .

If someone travels to bear country and knows nothing about bears guess what? They probably won't have a pleasant encounter when they meet a bear. Who's fault is that? . . .

Who is fault is that ?!?

WTF???

Maria Crapanova wrote:

I'd throw my 5month old into alligator pit for $1M. I was gonna have an abortion anyways. Might as well give birth and throw it away for paycheck for my 8 months of pain and suffering.

If you were going for funny you missed.

By a lot.

Sloop John B wrote:

Unfortunately no amount of money will bring back a lost child.

They did find and bring the child back. He was on the bottom of the lake only a few feet from the shore.

Apostrofreeze wrote:

Who is fault is that ?!?

WTF???

Calm you're tits.

troof wrote:

Apostrofreeze wrote:

Who is fault is that ?!?

WTF???

Calm you're tits.

Sorry, I dont have any tit's. Perhap's your referring to your's.

Ababa ban wrote:

I am a PI lawyer of 22 years. Trust me, Disney was negligent. Anyone that says otherwise does not know the law.

I know the law of negligence very well (although I've dealt with Florida negligence law only tangentially). In the decades that I've argued precedent-setting appellate cases on negligence, including "duty to warn" cases, I've almost always represented plaintiffs; I certainly don't think that I suffer from any defense bias in this case. But it's not at all clear to me that a careful legal analyst or jurist would conclude that Disney was negligent as a matter of law here. And after reading far too many statements about Disney's liability in this case, I have yet to read any good legal analysis on the matter from anyone. That's unfortunate, because there are some interesting angles to this case that I've not seen explored. If I were a first-year torts professor, I might be tempted to assign it for argument, precisely because most people seem to reach their conclusions about Disney's liability in this matter almost instantaneously, and with great certitude.

Even if liability were conceded, a thoughtful damages assessment cannot really be made without knowledge of Florida damages law and the predispositions of factfinders (trial judges and juries) in the particular venue where the case is being tried. That's true for both compensatory and punitive damages.

As for the original question -- "How much money should the parents . . . get from Disney?" -- I'm reluctant to get into that subject right now.

$1M-$4M

The gator signs weren't up because Disney was trying to max out the amount of nightly revenue from the resorts. It was a measured, calculated business strategy. After the tragedy, up the the fences......fences, really? Again trying to protect the "Disney Brand" not protect the public, like signs would have done in the first place.

I don't know American law that well at all, but surely this is a negligent act?

They know there are alligators in the man made lake in the middle of their park. They know the park is full of children (customers). There are no measures in place to try and stop the interacting of said children and alligators, not even a simple sign warning customers of the danger.

Hulk Hogan wrote:

Hulk Hogan got $140 million(!) for Gawker publishing his sex tape. A 2 year old getting killed by an alligator at a (family friendly) Disney Resort on outdoor movie night?? This one is WAY worse!

I´m going with settlement for undisclosed amount that will be around $200 million.

There is quite a bit of difference between an intentional act whose intent was to harm and an act of god. There is a lot of case history where land owners are not liable for wild animal attack on their property. If you have a party and YOUR dog attacks a kid, you are liable. If you have a party and the kid gets bit by a black recluse, you tend not to be liable. The question here is basically, in florida is it reasonable to expect a lake to be gator free? Most reasonable people would say hell no. It is just isn't possible to keep a body of water that big free of gators. You can then argue about signage and the like to try and add liability in.

As far as damages, realistically you are looking at 5-10 million max. That is what you get for pain and suffering (i.e. unlike the hulk, the kid wasn't making millions/year to lose) and you expect disney and their insurers to settle for something in that range rather than an extended court case which will bring this story up time and time again.