Ga. Supreme Court finds for gated community owner in gator case
This summary of today’s Georgia Supreme Court decision, in a gruesome fight over who is responsible for local wildlife, just rolled out:
In a split 4-to-3 decision, the Supreme Court of Georgia has reversed a Georgia Court of Appeals ruling in a high-profile Chatham County case involving an elderly woman who was partially eaten by an alligator.
As a result of today’s decision, written by Justice Harold Melton, the woman’s family has lost its attempt to have a jury try their case against the owners of the gated community where Gwyneth Williams was killed.
“Because the record shows that Williams had equal knowledge of the threat of alligators within the community, we reverse,” today’s majority decision says.According to briefs filed in the case, Williams was housesitting for her daughter and son-in-law at their home in The Landings, a gated residential community of about 8,500 residents located on 4,500 acres on Skidaway Island, a coastal barrier island near Savannah. The 83-year-old woman, who lived independently in Canada, had visited her daughter a number of times before, sometimes staying a couple of months. This time, she had offered to care for the couple’s two dogs while they were in Italy.
Alligators are indigenous to the area, and the animals were there before and after The Landings was developed in the 1970s. In building the property, the developers had drained swampy areas and created an interconnected system of 151 lagoons. Since the community was developed, there had never been an alligator attack against a person. Although no warnings about alligators were posted at the lagoons, The Landings Association did warn residents in publications and on its website that alligators were present and could be extremely dangerous. It also said it had a policy of arranging to have a state Department of Natural Resources trapper remove aggressive alligators or any greater than seven feet in length.
Behind the house where Williams was staying was Lagoon No. 15, which was bordered by a park-like common area on one side and a golf course owned by The Landings Club on the other. Although there were no witnesses, on the night of Oct. 5, 2007, Williams apparently went alone for a walk sometime after 6:00 p.m. At about that time, several boys reported to the property’s security forces that they heard a woman crying for help. On Oct. 6, Williams’ mutilated body was found floating in Lagoon No. 15. Her right foot and both forearms had been bitten off. Later an eight-foot alligator was found in the same lagoon and parts of Williams’ body were found in the animal’s stomach.
In October 2008, Williams’ heirs sued The Landings Association and The Landings Club, joint owners of the lagoon, seeking damages for the wrongful death of Gwyneth Williams. The owners responded by filing motions for summary judgment. (A court grants “summary judgment” when it determines there is no need for a jury trial because there is no genuine debate over the facts and the person requesting the judgment is entitled to it based on the law.)
Following a hearing, the trial court partially denied the owners’ motions for summary judgment, meaning the case could proceed to trial. The trial court found that questions of fact remained as to whether The Landings failed to take reasonable steps to protect Williams from being attacked and killed by an alligator on its property. On appeal, the Court of Appeals found the trial court was correct in partially denying the owners’ motions for summary judgment. The owners then appealed to the state Supreme Court.
“In this case, testimony shows that Williams was aware that wild alligators were present around The Landings and in the lagoons,” the majority opinion says. “Therefore, she had knowledge equal to The Landings entities about the presence of alligators in the community.” Furthermore, the majority states, Williams knew the alligators were dangerous, yet still chose to walk at night near a lagoon where she knew wild alligators were present. “Under these circumstances, the trial court should have granted the motions for summary judgment brought by the Landings entities regarding Williams’ premises liability claims,” states the majority, joined by Justices Hugh Thompson, P. Harris Hines and David Nahmias.
In the dissent, Justice Robert Benham writes that while there was evidence Williams had once seen an alligator in the area, there was no “competent evidence” that she knew there were alligators over seven feet in size living there. Premises liability cases such as this can only be resolved by summary judgment when the evidence is “plain, palpable and undisputed.” Here it is not, says the dissent, joined by Chief Justice George Carley and Presiding Justice Carol Hunstein.
For one thing, The Landings advertised it removed any alligators that were aggressive or longer than seven feet. “Indeed, there are very specific questions in this case that must go to a jury,” the dissent says, including whether Williams knew there were large and aggressive alligators in the community and whether The Landings’ owners had exercised reasonable care in keeping the premises safe.
- By Jim Galloway, Political Insider
For instant updates, follow me on Twitter, or connect with me on Facebook.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
95 comments Add your comment
My 2Cents!
June 18th, 2012
10:07 am
Let me clear up some legal aspects of this issue!
GA Code 27-1-3(b) The ownership of, jurisdiction over, and control of all wildlife, as defined in this title, are declared to be in the State of Georgia, in its sovereign capacity, to be controlled, regulated, and disposed of in accordance with this title. Wildlife is held in trust by the state for the benefit of its citizens and shall not be reduced to private ownership except as specifically provided for in this title. All wildlife of the State of Georgia is declared to be within the custody of the department for purposes of management and regulation in accordance with this title. However, the State of Georgia, the department, and the board shall be immune from suit and shall not be liable for any damage to life, person, or property caused directly or indirectly by any wildlife.
GA Code 27-3-170(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully feed or bait any wild alligator not in captivity. For purposes of this Code section, willfully tossing any food item edible by alligators to or in the vicinity of a live alligator or willfully leaving any such item in or near the water where an alligator is known to frequent shall constitute willfully feeding or baiting a live alligator.
(b) Violation of this Code section shall constitute a misdemeanor and upon conviction a violator shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $200.00 or confinement for not over 30 days, or both.
Rhett Butler
June 18th, 2012
10:08 am
I think the Supreme Court’s decision bites the big one.
Aaron Burr V Mexico
June 18th, 2012
10:12 am
Gotta love that the state made itself immune to being sued from the enforcement of a privilege it reserves unto itself.
How delightful.
Thus ensuring that accountability only takes place by electing officials at the state level…and we know how upstanding and moral they are….right?
Do the Math
June 18th, 2012
10:13 am
@ Dave 9:01 Doesn’t do much good as far as Darwanism when the victim was an 83 year-old woman. She wasn’t going to reproduce again anyway.
Score a victory for personal responsibility here.
Deej
June 18th, 2012
10:28 am
I’ll never understand why wild animals are killed for being, well, wild animals. I won’t even try to figure out why I’m scanning comments in this article about republicans and democrats. Some people have NOTHING else to discuss.
Sad Situation
June 18th, 2012
10:43 am
I knew before reading the full story how the vote went down and exactly how the dissenting opinion would read.
We have a Supreme Court for the purpose of deciding specific issues of law, especially when they are complex Consititutional issues. That’s why we have Constitutional scholars (in theory) on the bench.
If we wanted somebody to decide this case on the facts and determine whether the victim assumed the risk of injury we could have had a jury do that.
In this case we have a dissenting opinion published just to let everyone know “yes, we know what we’re doing and we know the law, but the majority of this Court chooses not to follow it here.”
And because this is fundamentally a case about property rights the federal government will defer to the state – so no second chance in federal court.
There were so many legal doctrines the Court could have considered in its analysis (strict liability for wild animals/coming to the nuisance, etc.), but instead it followed the money to a decision, and then published an opinion that made multiple presumptions of fact in drawing a map that ended up there.
This is shameful and degrading. Is there any part of Georgia government that is free from this kind of influence?
Aaron Burr V Mexico
June 18th, 2012
10:46 am
@Sad Situation – No. Not that I can see. And that is both in Red and the few Blue areas I know of. Its all rotten to the core.
Middle of the Road
June 18th, 2012
10:46 am
“@Middle of the Road – They served their coffee 50 degrees higher than anyone else at that time.
MUST you defend the corporation no matter what?”
No, I don’t defend corporations no matter what. When banks go under after making loans to people who have no realistic ability to repay their mortgages, then that is mostly the bank’s fault. When a company knowingly disposes of waste that endangers people’s help and hides the fact, that is the company’s fault. That is a lot different from providing “hot” coffee that everyone knows is hot and should be treated with respect. 50 degrees hotter than everyone else? Where did you get that information? All McDonald’s or only that one store? Of course they had paid out settlements for other coffee burns – idiots are everywhere. Maybe you are a Liberal and think the government should make a law stating that all coffee must be served at a temperature not to exceed 130 degrees? Or that signs should be placed at all restaurants which say “Our Hot coffee is Hot. Please be aware that Hot things may cause burns to your skin if they come in contact with it.” It reminds me of the sign I saw last week in California when entering a hote – “Proposition 65 notifies the customer that some things in this hotel may cause cancer, result in birth defects, or otherwise is hazardous to your health”. You see that sign on EVERYTHING in California. Net result – absolutely nothing.
Also reminds me of a joke I once heard-
After a multi-million dollar multi-year government statistical study, they determined that 100% of all people who lived, eventually died. So the FDA is now considering a ban on living as hazardous to your health.
Mishap
June 18th, 2012
10:50 am
If the HOA states one of its responsibilities is to remove large/dangerous alligators, doesn’t that place some of the responsibility on them? They advertised they had a plan in place for dealing w/ gators but obviously did not address a large one living on the grounds. Fairly certain that is the definition of negligence. This elderly woman wasn’t trudging through a marsh in the middle of the night, she was walking in a common park-area maintained by the HOA. Sunset in Oct is still after 7pm so there was likely plenty of daylight still and I’m guessing a gator can catch even healthy people in a short burst in broad daylight.
I’d say this is a case of comparative negligence w/ the majority going to the HOA. The lady should have been more careful but clearly the HOA wasn’t addressing oversized alligators that it claimed it was. The fact that children heard her cries for help makes it seem that it’s a family community (I wouldn’t live anywhere w/ kids and non-fenced water) and people get into worse trouble over dog bites vs. something as noticeable as an 8ft gator that shouldn’t be there. Either fence off the water, put up warnings and move the walkways further from the water, or spend some money on a gator trapper. Common sense for someone from Savannah may be a little different for a Canadian but the community clearly shirked at least some of its responsibilities.
Darien Blindness
June 18th, 2012
10:53 am
The area in question does pose a greater risk to the population than SE Georgia in general because the area was particularly well suited to gators prior to being developed as a residential community. When you build homes you expect people to live and visit there. The same is not true in less densely populated areas.
Aquagirl
June 18th, 2012
11:06 am
Either fence off the water, put up warnings and move the walkways further from the water, or spend some money on a gator trapper.
I’m not sure why you think getting away from water on Skidaway ISLAND is possible.
Casual Observer
June 18th, 2012
11:08 am
Isn’t it interesting when a topic about a lawsuit against a corporation for negligence comes up people who know next to nothing like to bring up the McDonalds hot coffee case?
Why are people so fascinated with this case?
Was it fodder for conservative talk radio hosts or something?
Some McDonalds (some corporate and some franchise) stores made a habit of “super-heating” coffee in order to eliminate waste form unservably tepid coffee.
When coffee is super-heated it creates a risk that cannot be assumed (as a legal standard) by the consumer.
Of course the consumer must exercise due caution when handling a hot product, but that consumer would elect to purchase coffee elsewhere if they knew that if they were to spill the coffee they risk injuries of the type sustained in this incident.
The plaintiff in this case sustained third degree burns to her genitalia.
Had she spilled normally brewed and stored coffee her injuries would not have been as severe.
McDonalds was liable and the jury in this case found the punitive damages award was necessary to make McDonalds remember not to serve super-heated coffee in the future.
But please don’t let the facts get in the way of your brilliant observations going forward.
Casual Observer
June 18th, 2012
11:09 am
Aquagirl is a Libertarian now.
TLC-1181
June 18th, 2012
11:13 am
This is a very unfortunate circumstance that I do not believe could have been avoided, either way. I live at The Landings on Skidaway Island and have for almost 15 years. It is made known on the island in various ways, including the local publication for the island, that alligators are present and can be dangerous. I am not sure if you know all of the details about this situation but not only was this woman walking at night beside a lagoon but she was also walking a dog…at night…by the lagoon. Alligators in general are not known to be extremely aggressive towards humans but they have been known to make pets, such as dogs, disappear from yards…not at the landings but in general. It is because they are an easy target for alligators. It seems that this woman might have possibly just been an addition to what was originally going to be a small snack. Whether a sign had been present or not, I do not believe that this woman would have changed her mind about walking this dog by the lagoon.
@Aaron- It seems to me that you just love to hear yourself speak, or in this case ramble on about things that have nothing to do with the above story. I believe that your comment about doing this all day because you “called in sick to work” says a lot about what kind of person is making the comments that seem to just fire people up. The landings had no obligation to put signs up just like resorts are not obligated to put signs up stating that there may be sharks or sting rays in the water… Whether she knew that there were alligators or not, it is not someone Else’s responsibility to pay for this woman’s mistakes. She ultimately made the decision to walk by this body of water knowing that alligators were present. It is a risk you take on a daily basis in anything that you chose to do….if you drown, you chose to swim. If you are walking by this lagoon and trip over a stump and break your arm, is it the landings responsibility to state that there was a stump present? I think not. At some point, the blame game must stop and take responsibility for one’s actions.
Aquagirl
June 18th, 2012
11:17 am
Aquagirl is a Libertarian now.
Nah, just sticking up for my aquatic neighbors.
Seriously, I wouldn’t consider myself a Libertarian because I don’t think this development should have been built at all. It’s a barrier island, not a playground for rich people who think alligators are an inconvenience to their golf outing.
Aaron Burr V Mexico
June 18th, 2012
11:35 am
@TLC-1181 – That comment wasn’t mine. It was made by a coward.
And I am a firm believer in personal responsibility. But only to the degree when one can make it in an informed fashion.
But again, my objection here was the fact that the local community claims unreasonable powers with only limited responsibility.
In fact, that same extends to the state. You cannot continue to extend the ‘personal responsibility’ argument without extending it to businesses, the local government and the state.
I admitted I was wrong about it this being an unusual circumstance…however every other single point I’ve made, including the hypocrisy of the argument I’ve made holds.
Conversely Middle has not one admitted he was wrong about McDonalds nor do you and the majority of anti government minded idiots ever admit that even if they are not libel, it WOULD HAVE BEEN THE DECENT THING for the community association to put up a sign besides the local publication.
Republicans are cartoons. Moderates, who coddle them, are enablers of the most destructive and disgusting kind imaginable.
Aaron Burr V Mexico
June 18th, 2012
11:38 am
Being for smaller government does not make you a libertarian. I am for smaller government.
Being a libertarian means thinking you are entitled to rights no one else is and that you are a ‘producer’ while everyone else is a ’slacker’. Being a libertarian means your interpretation of the constitution is right, and everyone else’s is wrong. Being a libertarian means government is always the problem, never a solution (Aside from sacrosanct ‘contract law’.
Being a libertarian means being so insecure in your position and beliefs that you must make a test that makes anyone who takes it short of Adolf Hitler or Stalin a libertarian, even though they don’t identify themselves as such.
Aqua Girl is too intelligent to be a libertarian.
Mishap
June 18th, 2012
11:39 am
Aquagirl,
This was a manmade lagoon surrounded by homes/park landscaping on one side and a golf course on the other square in the middle of a residential development. It’s not exactly the Okefenokee.
I don’t think there should be much in damages (the woman wasn’t faultless) but at the minimum they need to address large alligators near homes especially when they mention they do have mitigation plans in place. The woman was a guest and not a resident so perhaps the neighborhood newsletter/website wasn’t familiar to her and a few warning signs no matter how unsightly would have been advisable.
Casual Observer
June 18th, 2012
11:57 am
Hey TLC-1181:
Do you stand at the entrance to your community and hand out your pamphlets warning of gators to everyone who enters? If not, do you realize that certain invitees may be unaware of the specific risk these wild animals pose?
TLC-1181
June 18th, 2012
12:03 pm
I understand that this woman was a guest and might not have known about the local publications, etc. but there are various signs around the island stating that the marsh/wildlife areas are to be avoided…the question is where do these new signs need to go/ how many do you put? She was walking behind the residence, in which she was staying, so should there be signs behind every house? Just in case she doesn’t see one of the other ones?
The Island has spent plenty of money over the years trying to make sure all laws are followed and everyone is safe…
Most of the lagoons on the island are surrounded by houses are most are landscaped to a certain extent…This doesn’t mean that there is no danger….The law states that any gator over 7 feet must be removed…The gator involved was eight…I don’t know about you, Mishap, but i can’t tel the difference between a seven and eight foot gator…I’ll let you measure
Perhaps Aqua would prefer all of the alligators be taken off of the island, rather than sharing it with us golfers?
TLC-1181
June 18th, 2012
12:10 pm
@Casual- No i do not stand at the entrance of our community handing out pamphlets, just as I am sure you do not stand at your local red light handing out pamphlets on the dangers of driving a vehicle…Whether you live in Canada, Southeast, or anywhere else in the world, you know that alligators are to be avoided to ensure your safety..This woman had previously seen an alligator in this lagoon…It’s common sense. We also have rattlesnakes, snapping turtles, and many more creatures that present a danger that are not advertised…Should there be a sign, or your preference, pamphlets, for every possible danger that we could cross?
TLC-1181
June 18th, 2012
12:16 pm
Also, she was not the average invitee…She would come and live for months at a time. The landings was developed in the early 70’s and this is our first instance where something like this has occurred…Perhaps this is just a freak accident?
Wildlife
June 18th, 2012
12:26 pm
I feel as if it is no one’s fault. How can we sue someone for being attacked by animals? So I can sue the people who maintain a park because a squirrel runs across my feet scratches me and I get some kind of disease. Wildlife is called that for a reason. Even in communities where they try to keep some wildlife out they still seem to sneak in. I can’t sue someone because a snapping turtle came in my yard and bit my toe off, or a deer seeing the reflection of the trees in a glass door bust in and runs around my house. Stop building houses where our wild life has to take refuge because we have destroyed their homes. We can’t get mad when they destroy ours.
Aquagirl
June 18th, 2012
12:30 pm
It’s not exactly the Okefenokee.
Yes, it is. Look at a map of Skidaway island. It’s all marsh and inlets, except for the areas that were bulldozed and built up for the development.
I don’t think you understand streets and houses do not magically repel alligators. If you build them in the middle of a marsh, you will find alligators there. There is no reasonable way you can expect the association to remove alligators from the premises. You can’t fence off the entire development, you can’t go out and catch every alligator. It’s not a gigantic sterile lawn.
I realize most people are raised in the ‘burbs nowadays but it sounds like you need to get out more. You have some seriously unrealistic ideas about animals and terrain.
Mishap
June 18th, 2012
12:59 pm
I’m not expecting a homes or a golf course to repel wildlife but an 8ft alligator isn’t your common rattlesnake and the HOA mentioned a mitigation plan for large gators. The place is obviously built out of a swamp but don’t build a park next to a gator nest if you plan on having people live there. Someone might make the wrong assumption the park space is for people. The website for the community shows people canoeing in the water, walking on trails via bridges that run directly over lagoons, and Google maps shows homes right up to the water’s edge. If it weren’t for the news around this case, one might expect an idyllic coastal waterfront property vs. a swamp w/ some golf courses drawn on it.
The case should come down to when was the last time they inspected the water spaces and whether or not the HOA neglected its duty to maintain common spaces by checking for hazards (like a sizable gator). The woman had some duty to protect herself but it’s not like the HOA was faultless for ignoring upkeep of its water space which is under its ownership and was out of compliance with the law since an oversized gator was found.
What if an HOA ignored a leaking water pipe and allowed a sinkhole to form under a sidewalk it owned and allowed someone to fall through? Would the HOA be at fault for neglecting its duties? One should be aware of hazards anywhere you are but if you landscaped a path up to the edge of some water, do you honestly expect dangerous wildlife to lurk in it? Perhaps if you’re a resident there and have been warned but it’s certainly possible for long term house guests to miss the newsletters so a sign or two probably would have been much cheaper than having lawyers deal w/ it to this point.
Silver Creek Doug
June 18th, 2012
1:12 pm
Mishap, the difference in your water pipe scenario versus the facts of this case are a man made product causing an incident versus a natural inhabitant encounter. The law sees a big difference in the two.
As someone who grew up in SE GA, specifically Savannah, I assume any body of water around there has the possibility of gators and/or snakes. It’s my default position.
Casual Observer
June 18th, 2012
1:20 pm
This didn’t happen in a park. It happened in a residential community that was specifically planned and managed for the use and enjoyment of all kinds of people, including the elderly.
You said you removed the over-sized gators and you mailed out pamphlets warining about their presence. But obviously you did not do enough to protect this woman, who was not a member of your HOA. You were negligent in your failure to maintain the premises in a safe condition and in your failure to warn of the dangers that existed.
You should have paid the woman’s family. But instead you bought four out of seven jurists.
Savannah can be charming if you drive through with your windows up and don’t stop. The Spanish moss in the live oaks really is beautiful, and the old forts are definitely worth a tour. But the restaurants are gross, the people are stupid and the beach (Tybee Island) is disgusting, and the only people who go there are the lowest form of white trash.
Aquagirl
June 18th, 2012
1:23 pm
One should be aware of hazards anywhere you are but if you landscaped a path up to the edge of some water, do you honestly expect dangerous wildlife to lurk in it?
YES. Once again—do you think building a path magically repels wildlife? The people building the path assume you have normal intelligence and understand alligators live in the local waters. Here’s a shocker: the Grand Canyon has paths built right up to the edge.There isn’t even a rail or anything. And yes, people ask park rangers why they don’t build rails around the edge of the Grand Canyon, so you have some company out there.
If you’re all OMG the house is right next to the water with the alligators and snakes then DON’T LIVE THERE. Nobody–not the HOA, not the government, not super-duper wildlife trappers can sanitize the place for you. The fact you confuse leaking water pipes with natural occurrences is good indication you lack discernment and common sense about 9/10ths of the planet.
Frankly you just don’t get it. If you have kids, please enroll them in scouting or junior Sierra Club hikes or something. Because the first time you take them outside metro area sprawl they’ll be toast.
Texas Gravy
June 18th, 2012
1:36 pm
Post signs? How about one for the alligators- Please don’t eat the humans, it will probably be just as effective.
Mishap
June 18th, 2012
1:52 pm
Yes, if I bought a home down there (don’t think kids + gators/snakes mix so I’d be a bit leery of such a place) I’d be very cautious of wildlife. That said, that isn’t an excuse for the HOA to ignore dangerous conditions it creates. No one’s answered why they can build a bunch of 600k+ homes but couldn’t be troubled to put up alligator warning signs (which they said they didn’t have).
A park next to a manmade lagoon is not a natural occurrence. The builder cleared the swamp, created lagoons, and built parks adjacent to the water and entrusted the management to the HOA. If she was slogging through a swamp in a nature preserve, it’s a different story. Pipe corrosion is also natural…water + steel = rust. Ensuing erosion would also be natural. There’s a very distinct difference between this case and the Grand Canyon. If you climb over the edge of the canyon, liability kind of falls on you. Stay on the path and have the path crumble into the canyon and the US gov’t is writing your family a check.
I’m not saying the HOA needs to be handing a 7 figure check to the family. I’m saying they were negligent in managing their common space since it didn’t meet code for a residential area. Yes, it’s built atop a swamp and the swamp never left but an 8ft gator isn’t invisible and no one’s saying if the HOA had a realistic wildlife management plan when it’s advertising itself as a family friendly community. Even if they won, I suspect there are plenty of signs now along w/ some semblance to inspections of water spaces controlled by the HOA.
Wildlife
June 18th, 2012
1:53 pm
@Casual Observer all of that is not true of Savannah. I have been here all of my life and I am not stupid by far. Now I will admit our beach isn’t the best I’ve seen ( I agree with you there). I wonder if people knew some of the stories behind our great city would they be so excited about visitng here.
At the same time Savannah is not the topic at hand. It wasn’t Savannah that ate the lady, it was an alligator. If it happens here it can happen anywhere. We are just a southern city and we may have more wildlife than northen cities that can’t breathe because they don’t really have trees. Point blank wild animals are wild animals and if they feel you are a threat to them they will attack. Let me take that back animals are animals and if they feel threatened they will attack you. Or if they are hungry and you smell like a tasty treat they will attack you. If there had to be a sign stating that a wild animal will attack you then there would be no use for common sense. If you mess with even the smallest of dogs they will bite you when they are tired of you bothering them. It’s not blamed on the city it is blamed on the person. If I go to the beach and get attacked by a shark I can’t sue the beach, I knew there was a possibilty that a shark could bite me because I am playing in a ocean. Well if I decide to move somewhere and I know there is marshes, the ocean and a forest right down the street or in my backyard I know there is the possibility that there are wild animals and I take precautions. I am not going to depend on the people who sold me my house to do it for me.
Wildlife
June 18th, 2012
1:57 pm
You can’t control wildlife. i don’t care who you are. People get attacked all the time because they try to control it. Take precautions for yourself.
Hillbilly D
June 18th, 2012
2:39 pm
Living up here in the Hills, I don’t understand any of this. We don’t have gators up here, well my Great Grandpa had a little one but a neighbor was out hoeing his corn and didn’t know what it was and chopped it’s head off with a hoe, but I digress. We do have coyotes (which shouldn’t be here but that’s another story for another day), bear, bobcats, rattlesnakes, copperheads, and other various critters. The way to deal with that is you let them alone and they’ll let you alone. Anytime you’re outdoors, you need to be paying attention to your surroundings. A little common sense can go a long way.
Middle of the Road
June 18th, 2012
2:49 pm
Wanted to be fair, so I looked up what I could find about the Liebeck vs. McDonald’s case.
McDonald’s stated they went by recommendations from coffee producers that say brewing at 190-205 degrees is necessary to get the BEST flavor.
A lot was made out of the fact that McDonald’s didn’t settle for much less. Would you settle if you did not think you did anything wrong? Add the settlement costs to your product cost?
Ms. Liebeck sued for “medical expenses” but she was 79 years old and covered by Medicare. Maybe she (and her lawyers) really wanted the original 2.7 million in “punitive” damages.
In 2011, an ABC survey at most drive-through windows still found most coffee was served as hot as 180 degrees – most likely because THAT IS THE WAY PEOPLE WANT IT.
The vast majority of the people in the united states believe this case is a prime example of sue-happy people (sort of like suing a HOA when your mom gets attacked by an alligator).
Never did see anything about “superheating coffee” to save money.
The jury verdict was the emotional result of a 79-year old woman versus a major Corporation. The jurors were shown graphic images of her genitalia. This is why in the alligator case, they are pushing for a summary judgement by a judge or judges. When you take it to jurors anything could happen. OJ Simpson could be found not guilty of killing his wife. Casey Anthony could be found not guilty of killing her daughter. Brian Nichols could be not given the death sentence for killing 5 people.
Middle of the Road
June 18th, 2012
2:55 pm
We need signs up for bees. A lot of people die from allergic reactions to bee stings.
Middle of the Road
June 18th, 2012
2:57 pm
Probably a LOT more people die from bee stings than alligator attacks, so definitely any HOA that does not put up a sign warning of bees in their neighborhood should be liable.
Ben
June 18th, 2012
3:02 pm
That’s why everyone who chooses 2 has the right to conceal & openly bear arms wherever they go in GA unless prohibited by private property owners, including federal and state parks. With this ruling property owners can now say that your personal security is your own responsibility. Which is great since I carry my AK-47 with me in my vehicle anyway; HOOAH, I luv it cause the next alligator, coyote or black bear that crosses me I’m standing my ground and shooting dead on the spot.
Middle of the Road
June 18th, 2012
3:45 pm
The other thing I never found in my research on the McDonald’s coffee case was that they served their coffee”50 degrees hotter than everyone else”. As I mentioned, in a 2011 survey, most eeryone served their coffee at 180 degrees. NO ONE served their coffee at 130 degrees.
Lulu
June 18th, 2012
3:46 pm
I too think Home Owner Assoc. have too much control in GA and need to assume an equal degree of responsibility… which they do not. However, considering the age of the victim I also wonder that the hiers would burden her with the care of two pets in a locale known to be the habitat of Gators while they are out of the country. As a native of that area and an oft times visitor/ guest at the Landings, the perils of pets vs gators has often come up in my life experiences. As one equally aged to the victim it comes down to concern for self vs pet. I would probably have let the pets defend themselves until they came home of their own accord but then I am a coward. There is probably blame on both hiers and the Landings in this issue.
TLC-1181
June 18th, 2012
3:49 pm
@casual- This is the HOA for a 100% community. Our HOA does everything it can to ensure that our residents understand everything that goes along with living on this island. If you were leaving your house with someone to watch it for 2 months, wouldn’t you fill them in on the regulations, etc. that go along with taking care of the house? example: what day the trash cans can be out and when they have to be in? So although you are not there, whoever is there is responsible for the same things you are….Therefore, the people responsible for passing along the important tidbit of information about the alligators living there should have been the owners of the home…the children. Instead, the find it necessary to blame someone else, like most people tend to do now….I do feel for these individuals for their loss but i do not feel that any compensation should have been given.
Your opinion on Savannah seems to be pretty harsh… It seems you’ve based it on past experiences here, yet you feel that the only people who come here are the lowest form of white trash. Now i understand a little more about you, and thank you for verifying my intuition. The food is actually pretty good, and the people aren’t that stupid…Tybee is definitely not a very good beach and i won’t disagree that it is dirty. That’s why we buy houses on places like Skidaway Island instead of Tybee Island.
@mishap- I will be more than happy to answer your question…The reason that they can build $600k houses and be troubled by not putting up alligator signs is because the people building these $600k houses have more sense to know that alligators inhabit the area and to take the appropriate precautions without having to be told… There are signs out here on the island because I have seen them…They state to avoid marsh areas because it can be dangerous. I assume the reason that there are not more is because we did not think it would be necessary to simply state the obvious to people that alligators can attack.
No one said that the man made lagoon was a natural occurrence. The law just requires that you keep the natural habitat for the animals that lived there before. That, among many other reasons, was why the lagoons were established. You made a great point that an 8 foot gator isn’t invisible….Makes you wonder how it wasn’t seen from the bank, huh? These lagoons are not extremely deep, especially on the sides. I think this is just a case where an elderly lady made the mistake of not knowing/ avoiding the dangers of her environment.
This family does not deserve any compensation, especially because it is an instance where wildlife was involved. Gators are not bound to just one lagoon so this gator could have come from outside the marsh. This would have made it impossible for the HOA to prevent. There are too many variables in this situation and trying to gain financial gain from something that was not foreseeable is absurd.
Also, having alligators does not make a community unsafe. I am pretty sure i would rather live in a gated community with alligators in the lagoons, rather than in the city where so many other things come into play….
TLC-1181
June 18th, 2012
3:49 pm
*100% private community
More like 100% THC
June 18th, 2012
4:09 pm
The HOA does not own or control the swamp. But the HOA did exercis e a degree of control over the area where the victim was attacked. It maintained the area by mowing the grass and it was included in a description of the “common area,” of which each member was a partial owner.
The victim was an invitee of a member and was attacked by a wild animal in the common area.
The HOA was aware of the existence of a specific hazard in and around the common area.
In fact, the HOA was successor-in-interest to the developer, who created the risk by disrupting the natural habitat of the wild animals.
There is strict liability in tort for the presence of wild animals on private property upon which the victim is an invitee.
Except in this case. Here the victim assumed the risk of death by wild animal attack. Why the distinction? Because four out of seven Georgia Supreme Court justices drink HOA breast milk – straight from the tap.
Aquagirl
June 18th, 2012
4:21 pm
the HOA did exercis e a degree of control over the area where the victim was attacked. It maintained the area by mowing the grass
There’s some great legal reasoning. Mowing the grass = assumption of liability for wild animal attacks.
I can see where you got your screen name.
ED
June 18th, 2012
5:07 pm
I thought gated communities were supposed to keep out all the riff-raff. It should have been pointed out to the HOA that the 8 ft alligator failed to pay his monthly dues.
Seriously though, I’m sure that when covenant violations are discovered, warning letters and fines are sent out immediately. If “the landings” were located in Montana and a wild Grizzly bear took up residence, the bear would be removed.
On the other hand,
We’ve had a place on the coast of Georgia for many years. Every time we go out in the boat we look for gators when we beach. There are many more of them now, and they are getting bigger. Gators are masters of camouflaging themselves. Just because you don’t see one doesn’t mean ones not there. We’ve got small children and we watch them constantly while we’re out. The DNR needs to widen the scope of the gator season.
Aaron Burr V Mexico
June 18th, 2012
7:02 pm
Middle of the road loves corporations more than people. While moderates are disgusting , even moderates aren’t THAT selfish. Middle of the road is the prime example of why moderates are just ad evil as conservatives for saying “both sides are the same.”
2011 survey on a case that is much older. What a liar and how disgusting of independents to entertain that philosophy. Take need liberals for you see proof positive that moderates and independents do NOT reward restraint to any degree. Target them both punitively.