When Animals Attack, Property Owner’s Liability Often Not So Clear Cut

Tragedies involving wild animals, like the recent alligator attack on a toddler at a Disney World resort, are generally considered a force majeure, but a property owner’s liability may depend on reasonable expectations.

It is fairly certain that issues of civil liability are the last thing on the minds of the parents who could do nothing to stop an alligator from snatching their two-year-old child away at a man-made lake near a Disney World resort hotel this week. It is also a near-certainty that in the coming months, it will become the job of teams of investigators, lawyers and judges to assign responsibility for this unspeakable calamity. In cases where the blame falls squarely on the scaly back of a wild beast, that is very often where legal responsibility ends.

While it’s true that an alligator, a gorilla or a grizzly bear can’t be sued in a court of law, it is also likely the case that property owners are also largely protected from liability resulting from the unpredictable actions of Mother Nature. This includes the rare instances when a wild animal attacks a human.

CNN Legal Analyst Danny Cevallos explained, however, in an insightful piece published on Wednesday that the issue isn’t always so clearly defined. Cevallos notes that Florida courts have largely ruled that property owners cannot be held responsible for the actions of an alligator. Ferae naturae, a legal precedent that dates back to the ancient Romans, generally absolves property owners from legal responsibility of wild animal attacks. Judges have also agreed that disregarding a “no swimming sign” can shift responsibility for injuries to the victim.

In this case, although signs posted “no swimming” and it could have reasonably been expected to consider the possibility that a freshwater lake in Florida might be home to any number of dangerous snakes or alligators, the resort owners aren’t necessarily off the hook. “Even with adequate signage and ferae naturae doctrine, a resort could still be liable in spite of all these protections, if it’s flat-out negligent,” Cevallos concluded. “Resort liability in Florida for an alligator attack will depend on the specific facts — not only the facts of the tragedy itself, but what the resort did and knew in advance about the alligators, and the likelihood of the harm.”

[Photo: Getty]