Hellobee Boards

As someone from a place that doesn't have anything worse than the occasional snapping turtle in bodies of water, I would have interpreted a "No swimming" sign as meaning that the area had strong currents or sharp rocks or something. It wouldn't even occur to me that it actually meant not to go near the water at all, ESPECIALLY given the setup of that beach area. Disney ought to know that a large percentage of their guests wouldn't just intrinsically know about the potential for alligators!

@Jennibenni: "staged" is a really good choice of words. While I don't think its necessarily the resort's fault, and I like to think I would have obeyed no swimming signs, I can absolutely see how someone felt safe wading there (not from FL, clearly!)

When I lived in Japan, in one of the tiny ski towns famous for the snow monkeys who come to bathe in the hot springs, hotels distributed/displayed information, in many languages, about why you shouldn't go hop into just any hot spring (the baboons see it as their territory) and the importance of not just shutting but locking your windows (monkeys know there is good stuff in your luggage!) I thought this was helpful information for people who might not know better. Hindsight is always 20/20, I know, but I guess in this case, more specific signage might end up being needed. It's so sad!

@T.H.O.U.: I agree to an extent about freak accidents and there are certain risks people take everyday but people all over the world know about lightening. When I go to national parks there's usually info and signs about local animals and to beware.

Like others, living in WI, I NEVER would have thought the "No Swimming" sign meant not to go in there because of alligators. I know that there are alligators in FL, but I never would have thought it would have been a threat like that truthfully. I feel for the family, and I really think it is Disney's fault for poor signage.

Does no one do research on an area before traveling? I am not in the camp of pushing blame on either party in this case. All along the coast gators are an issue in populated areas. I realize Orlando isn't on the coast so to speak but Florida is very coastal. I think the bigger issue is when people are on vacation to a resort (Disney and many others) people feel like nothing bad could possibly happen to their group.

This being said I think it wouldn't hurt for Disney to put up posting about local wildlife could be present.

It doesn't really matter why you think it says no swimming. Disney shouldn't have to spell out every possible danger. It said no swimming, end of story. If you choose to swim, you've decided that you know better than Disney and you're special and the rules don't apply to you. Regardless of not being from an area where gators are native you would never find me or my family wading in a lake at 9pm! And certainly not one with no swimming signs. I feel awful for the parents, and I'm sure they never imagined this as a possibility, but that doesn't make this Disney's fault. The suggestion to sue them is crazy to me. I'm sure they will, and I'm sure Disney will settle to avoid media focus. But it's still crazy.

It's such a fascinating social phenomenon that people jump to blame anybody who would go to court after a tragedy like this. Like there's this perception that filing a lawsuit for damages is some horrible thing to do or in some way shows irresponsibility. Disney is one of the wealthiest companies on the planet; engaging in a lawsuit over a death on their resort would be a perfectly normal thing for them to participate in, would not make even a tiny dent in their enormous profits, and the settlement could go a long way toward helping this poor family with funeral expenses and their suffering. Whether it's Disney's "fault" would be up to the attorneys to argue and the judge to decide. It would be an entirely appropriate use of the legal system. It's so strange that anybody would get upset about that.

@Charm54: Wow, I'm assuming they reported it?! If so obviously no extra precautions were taken!

@Adira: You're welcome to disagree with me. If I see a sign that says "no swimming" I don't go in the water. At all. Because that's what that sign is intended to mean. My post was in response to so many people saying "I would have never expected Alligators to be the reason it says 'no swimming'". I'm just stating that regardless of what the reason was, the sign said no swimming and the family decided to enter the water anyway. Does that mean they 'deserved' to have this happen to their child? OF COURSE NOT. I'm heart broken for them, and can't imagine what they must be going though. But to hold Disney responsible for what amounts to a terrible accident is just not appropriate to me.

@MrsRcCar: Let me put it this way, yes, I do research, but at a place like Disney, where everything is staged, I would have expected there to be a sign about wildlife if that was the concern, not about not swimming in the water.

An alligator could come right up on the sand and in a second, have my leg in their mouth. I don't need to be in the water for that to happen. If that's the true risk, then the signage should reflect that.

@Foodnerd81: That thought process is why bad things happen at places like Disney. They are great at providing as safe as an environment as they can but there is risk traveling anywhere. It always important to be aware of your surroundings and not assume that everything will totally safe all the time. I have seen the no swimming signs that are posted, I always assumed that it had to do with wildlife in the area.
@Adira: While I agree that wading is not swimming it is still entering the water when it's clearly posted not to enter the water. If they weren't clear on the reasons for no swimming they should have asked or researched.

@PawPrints: So just because Disney is a wealthy company they should assume financial responsibility for this tragic accident? I am sure they will end up being financially responsible but I don't think it's right. They can't keep everyone safe especially if people ignore the signage.

@snowjewelz: The article said the incident was reported to hotel security ... clearly not enough was done

@MrsRcCar: I disagree about there being "clearly posted not to enter the water." "No swimming" does not mean "don't enter the water." Unless it does and I've just never been educated on this particular phrase's true meaning???? I'm saying, to ME, it never would have occurred to me that that's what "no swimming" means. As I'm sure it didn't occur to this family and many of the families on this thread saying it wouldn't have occurred to them.

I don't know how much whether no swimming means don't swim or don't step into the water even matters; alligators can clearly come onto land as well so honestly, you're at risk if you're standing close to the water even. I mean, those UK people only got away b/c they were not right at the water line and they all saw it and ran together. It was dark when the toddler was there so I doubt anyone could've really seen it coming and the toddler would not have known to gun for it.

@looch: I agree...if the danger is alligators and not just nasty bacteria water, they need to be really explicit. Kids go near the water for a lot of reasons: to get water for their sandcastles, skip rocks, watch the boats, etc. They aren't swimming, or even "wading", yet are still vulnerable at the shore's edge.

@MrsSCB: And to that end, to assume that the family would have heeded any other sign lacks a basis in fact; they ignored the signs that were already posted.

@Adira: I agree with your interpretation. I would have thought that the reason behind the sign was probably one of the following:
-no swimming because you'll be a nuisance to other guests
-no swimming because the water is polluted
-no swimming because there is a strong current

If there was a danger for alligators to come up on the beach I would have expected signage to say stay off the beach and stay away from the water.

@sunny: Exactly!! It wasn't even safe to be NEAR the water and there was NOOOOOOO indication of that.

I agree that doing some research before hand might have provided some insight about alligators and their possible whereabouts but how many people think to research wildlife when planning a vacation at a Disney resort?

The lack of alligator signs is insane to me. I live in the Los Angeles area and just about everywhere that presents any potential threat of wildlife has signs stating so from hiking in Malibu to pumpkin patches in Irvine. I can't count how many times I've seen mountain lion or rattlesnake signs. In many years of visiting said places I've only seen a rattlesnake once and never a mountain lion but the signs still make me hyper vigilant.

I can't imagine somewhere like Florida where alligators are quite common not having signage alerting visitors to the possible danger. Seems pretty irresponsible of Disney and probably gives visitors a false sense of security.

@Truth Bombs: My responses make it clear (or, I would've THOUGHT they made it clear) that it never would have OCCURRED to me that "no swimming" meant there could be some sort of danger just from wading or playing at the edge of the water. It wouldn't have occurred to me to go ask "Hey, why are there no swimming signs? Can I still wade in the water?" The sign just doesn't give enough indication that there is MORE TO IT than "swimming". "No swimming" means simple "no swimming." NOT "Don't wade, don't come near me, there's dangerous animals that might be here!"