Another lawyer believes that a “No Swimming” sign in waters where alligators could reside isn’t enough.
“A sign that says ‘No Swimming’ may not be sufficient because it does not prohibit wading in the water, and does not suggest that the water may be life threatening due to alligators. In fact it does not suggest danger at all, only that Disney does not want people swimming in the lagoon,” said Galen Criscione, a partner at law firm Criscione, Ravala & Tabatchouk that operates in New York, New Jersey, and Florida.
Disney, however, could contend that either the “family knew or should have know the risk of potential of an attack by an alligator” at the lagoon, Quinlan said, stipulating that “a warning that patrons should not swim” or wade “would have likely kept the parents from exposing the child to the danger.”
Defenders of Disney, including the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, say that the park has operated for 45 years without incident.
Criscione points out that the family, who is from Nebraska, may not have known that Florida has a significant alligator population. “The question in a lawsuit will come down to whether they ever had an idea that there were alligators in the area or if they should have known there were based on a reasonable person standard,” he told Epoch Times.
The boy’s family could invoke the attractive nuisance doctrine, which states that a landowner—in this case, Disney—could be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by an object on the land that could attract children, Criscione said.
Nick Wiley, executive director of the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), said in a press conference Disney has been “very proactive” in dealing with alligators. When Disney found alligators in lagoons near the resort, they were removed and euthanized.
Meanwhile, a number of legal experts—including Quinlan—don’t expect charges to be filed against the parents of the boy.
