I'm not going to type a novel on my phone but to the first bolder -- yes, duh? My post was explaining both sides of the coin (it being either typical or atypical that the alligator lives there). To second, having such a plan would acknowledge that they are a danger or nuisance, and then failure to remove said alligator would be spun as a deficiency in the plan. There is basically a zero percent chance with how the facts have been presented that Disney does not have some legal exposure. That's all I'm trying to say, and I'm 100% correct and any lawyer will back me up on that.
Yes, I think you are probably right, although I have to say I don't know all the facts and circumstances.
From the pictures I've seen, there was a beach there, correct? That's a key fact.
If Disney knew that there were alligators in that lake, and they knew that people were playing on the beach, and they knew that alligators are dangerous animals***, then I'd think it would be reasonable to do more to prevent people from swimming, risking an alligator attack, than just to put up a no-swimming sign, because it's foreseeable that people who don't know the danger will ignore the sign, thinking it's a pointless restriction on harmless fun to anyone who is a strong, unintoxicated swimmer. A "no swimming-Alligators!" sign, on the other hand, would have warned them of the danger, which is prudent based in part on the attractive nuisance principles Lax described (that's black-letter law that everyone learns in 1L, so I assume that's the law in Florida, but I don't know for certain how the law works there).
It certainly seems to me that there is at least a non-frivolous argument that Disney should have foreseen the possibility that someone playing on the beach might decide to wade into the water or swim near the shore and thereby disturb an alligator, unintentionally provoking an attack, and taken reasonable measures to prevent that from happening. I don't think Disney was required to put up a fence or anything, but I think it was probably required to do more than just put up a "no swimming" sign; there should have been some warning of alligators, a danger of which many people from places like Nebraska would have no awareness.
Just my totally off-the-cuff, stream-of-consciousness opinion.
Btw, this is from the perspective of what I think it would have been prudent for Disney to do in advance of this tragedy; not saying I know how any lawsuit the family might file will turn out or anything like that.
***This may be a questionable assumption, if wiz is correct that alligators are not dangerous animals. He might be right, and I have no doubt that he is right that alligator attacks are very rare, but I am having trouble crediting the assertion that there was a virtually zero percent chance of an alligator attack.
EDIT: Moments after I finished typing this post I happened upon this:
Orlando alligator: Who is liable for toddler's death? - BBC News
Sounds like the case against Disney is fairly weak, in part because principles of attractive nuisance and premises liability don't apply to wild animal attacks. It will come down to that failure-to-warn problem, which is a tough row to hoe because alligator attacks are so rare.
Of course it's all academic anyway; as the article points out and numerous posters have said, Disney will certainly settle to avoid a PR nightmare.
