I'm pretty familiar with this area of the law. It
does matter if Disney knew there were alligators present - that's one of the two key facts in which the entire case will rest, if legal action is brought against Disney. Premises liability is first-year Torts subject matter, and there is established case law on alligator attacks in Florida that goes back decades.
Again, I'll reiterate that you're selectively quoting the Palumbo case. It's a multi-pronged legal analysis, and you're only taking into consideration the first prong with your quote. Here is an important piece of the legal analysis you are leaving out:
This turns the case to a premises-liability analysis, as the defendant in the Palumbo case had preexisting knowledge of the regular presence of alligators on the property, and it was acting as an invitor. Thus, the landowner-invitor had the following duty of care under Florida law:
- a duty to use reasonable care in maintaining the property in a reasonably safe condition,
- a duty to warn of latent or concealed dangers which: a) should be known to the owner, and b) are unknown to the invitee, and c) cannot be discovered through the exercise of due care.
As I mentioned previously, any legal suit is going to hinge on two key facts, one of which is if Disney knew of the presence of alligators in the waters around the hotels. This shifts the analysis away from the ferae naturae doctrine and to premises liability/resort liability law. If you want a prime example of how a family visiting Florida from Nebraska may not appreciate the risk of alligators being present in a man-made beach on a Disney resort, you can look no further than this very thread wherein a multitude of posters have expressed ignorance and surprise of the types of waters alligators may be present within in Florida.
If Disney had knowledge of alligators being present, as certain reports have claimed with the park being notified of hotel guests feeding alligators, Disney had a duty of care to warn invitees of their presence.
The second key fact if a case is brought to trail will be, was the "No Swimming" sign adequate to fulfill Disney's duty of care to warn of alligators? Considering the lack of specificity of the sign with respect to the danger of an alligator attack, and because the boy was wading in shallow water just off shore, as opposed to swimming per se, I don't foresee a finder of fact determining the boy's "swimming" was the sole proximate cause of his death.
All the above is only analyzing a negligence/recklessness claim of action against Disney. It's not even taking into consideration a wrongful death action, which the boy's parents could also bring, and which would be an entirely different legal analysis.
In practice, all the above is going to be moot anyway, as there is a high likelihood that Disney and the parents will settle out of court. It would behoove Disney not to have such a case being continuously brought up in the media during tourist season, and it certainly risks reputational damage if it is painted as a big corporation zealously embroiling itself in a legal battle against a family of tourists whose toddler was chomped by an alligator right in front of their eyes.
