Case Name: WALT DISNEY WORLD CO., etc., et al., Appellants, v. Marietta GOODE, etc., et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1986-12-04
Citations: 501 So. 2d 622
Docket Number: No. 85-680
Parties: WALT DISNEY WORLD CO., etc., et al., Appellants, v. Marietta GOODE, etc., et al., Appellees.
Judges: DAUKSCH, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 501
Pages: 622–629-631

Head Matter:
WALT DISNEY WORLD CO., etc., et al., Appellants, v. Marietta GOODE, etc., et al., Appellees.
No. 85-680.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Dec. 4, 1986.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 14, 1987.
John L. O’Donnell, Jr., and Thomas B. DeWolf of DeWolf, Ward & Morris, P.A., Orlando, for appellants.
Joel D. Eaton of Podhurst, Orseck, Parks, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadow & Olin, P.A., and Freidin & Hirsch, P.A., Miami, for appellees.

Opinion:
ORFINGER, Judge.
On August 11, 1977, four year old Joel Goode drowned in a man-made waterway or moat at Walt Disney World. He was with his mother, Marietta Goode, who noticed that he was missing shortly after 11 P.M. Approximately three hours later, Joel's body was found in five feet of water a short distance from where he had become separated from his mother. An autopsy found no evidence of foul play and established the cause of death as drowning. No one saw Joel enter the waterway.
Joel's parents sued Walt Disney World for the wrongful death of their son. The jury returned a verdict of $1,000,000 for Joel's father, Harry Goode, and $1,000,000 for Joel's mother, Marietta. The jury also determined that Disney and Joel's mother were each fifty percent negligent. Accordingly, a judgment was entered for $500,000 dollars for the mother and $1,000,000 for the father. On appeal, Disney argues that the artificial waterway was not unreasonably dangerous nor did it constitute a trap, and thus as a matter of law, Disney was not negligent. Even assuming some negligence on its part, Disney contends that the damages awarded were excessive.
Walt Disney World is a place of public amusement, where thousands of adults and children are entertained daily for the price of admission. Joel Goode was a paying patron and thus a business invitee on the premises. The accident occurred at night, when crowds were forming to watch the 11:30 P.M. Main Street "Electric Light Parade." The legal principles which should be applied in this case are exactly the same as those which would be applied had Joel Goode fallen at night into an open hole dug by Disney employees on one of its walkways and left without barricades, lights or other warning, or in cases where a plaintiff drives his motor vehicle off an unbarricad-ed dead end street into a bay or canal. See e.g. City of Tampa v. Finley, 152 Fla. 335, 11 So.2d 576 (1943); City of Hialeah v. Revels, 123 So.2d 400 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). Under these circumstances Joel would not have become a trespasser and Disney's liability would not depend on the attractive nuisance doctrine or upon a finding that Joel's injury was caused by a trap or some unusual element of danger. Instead, the issue of liability would turn upon the issue of whether Disney had used ordinary or reasonable care for the protection of the safety of its patron.
There is no evidence in this case that Joel Goode entered the waterway to swim or bathe. Instead, the evidence lends itself to the conclusion that he fell in. Joel Goode did not become a trespasser by falling into the moat. Disney employees testified that they were aware of the fact that young children frequently climbed the short fences to play in the grassy area adjacent to the moat. As we pointed out in Goode v. Walt Disney World Co., 425 So.2d 1151 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), pet. for rev. den., 436 So.2d 101 (Fla.1983), (Goode I), "[ajccess to the edge of the moat is access to the moat itself." Id. at 1156.
Whether or not Disney is liable for the drowning of the infant decedent turns on the ordinary rules of negligence as they apply to a business invitee at a place of public amusement. The duty owed to a business invitee by the operator of a place of public amusement was said in Wells v. Palm Beach Kennel Club, 160 Fla. 502, 35 So.2d 720 (1948) to be:
Places of amusement where large crowds congregate are required to keep their premises in reasonably safe condition commensurate with the business conducted. If the owner fails in this, and such failure is the proximate result of injury to one lawfully on the premises, compensatory damages may be recovered if the one injured is not at fault. J.G. Christopher Co. v. Russell, 63 Fla. 191, 58 So. 45, text 47, Ann.Cas.1913C, 564. One operating a place of amusement like a race course where others are invited is charged with a continuous duty to look after the safety of his patrons. .
We do not mean to imply that they are insurers of the safety of their patrons, but we do say that reasonable care as applied to a race track requires a higher degree of diligence than it does when applied to a store, bank or such like place of business. [Emphasis added].
Id. 35 So.2d at 721. See also Rainbow Enterprises, Inc. v. Thompson, 81 So.2d 208 (Fla.1955) (applying the same rule of law to scenic gardens) and Brightwell v. Beem, 90 So.2d 320 (Fla.1956) (applying the same rule to an amusement park and bathing beach when the injury occurred in the water).
The attractive nuisance doctrine, relied upon by the dissent, is an exception to the rule of nonliability for injury to infant trespassers. Johnson v. Wood, 155 Fla. 753, 21 So.2d 353 (1945). Originally known as the "turntable doctrine," the attractive nuisance doctrine came into being as a means of providing relief to children who were allured or enticed upon the land by a condition, instrumentality, machine or other agency dangerous to children of tender years, and who were injured by the very thing that attracted them. See Keaton, Prosser and Keaton on the Law of Torts 400 (5th ed.1984); 62 Am.Jur.2d Premises Liability § 138, 139 (1972). The attractive nuisance doctrine elevates the duty owed by the property owner to the child from merely having to refrain from willful and wanton negligence, to a duty of reasonable care. Because Joel Goode had the status of invitee as a paying patron, the liability of Disney can be established without invoking the attractive nuisance doctrine. As was stated by the supreme court in Green Springs, Inc. v. Calvera, 239 So.2d 264 (Fla.1970) in an action against a homebuilder and owner-developer of a housing project for the death of an infant where the parties argued the applicability of the attractive nuisance doctrine:
[T]he child killed in this case was not a trespasser, so there is no need to search for a doctrine separate from the rules of ordinary negligence law to support a duty of care toward her.
Id. at 265.
The rule relied upon by the dissent, going to artificial ponds and the liability of owners thereof, had its inception (and has its continued application) in attractive nuisance cases. See Allen v. William P. McDonald Corp., 42 So.2d 706 (Fla.1949) (the question in Allen was whether the artificial lake might be amenable to the attractive nuisance doctrine so as to establish a duty of reasonable care owed the trespassing child by the lake's owner). The clear im port of the general rule, that the owner of an artificial body of water is not liable for drownings therein unless the artificial waterway is constructed so as to constitute a trap or unless there is some unusual element of danger lurking about it not existent in ponds generally, is simply that in the absence of a trap, owners of artificial bodies of water owe no greater (or lesser) duty to infant trespassers than do owners of property with naturally occurring bodies of water. In the absence of a trap or unusual element of danger, artificial bodies of water present perils which are or should be obvious to trespassing children and thus do not constitute attractive nuisances. See 16 A.L.R.3d § 8 and cases cited therein. Any alleged negligence of an owner thereof may be tested by the rules of ordinary negligence law. In the presence of a trap or unusual element of danger, the attractive nuisance doctrine is applicable to elevate the status of the trespassing child because the incapacity of age of the trespassing child does not permit him to appreciate the dangers involved.
Sub judice a major contention at trial was that Disney was negligent in not taking the precautions necessary to keep the child from falling into the water. The plaintiffs presented evidence from which the jury could conclude that, among other things, Disney was negligent in the following respects: (1) failing to provide barrier fences of adequate height to prevent access by small children to the otherwise unprotected moat; (2) designing and constructing the land areas adjacent to the moat with an unreasonably steep slope, creating a rolling or falling hazard to small children; (3) designing and constructing the moat to contain water of an unreasonable depth constituting a drowning hazard to small children; and (4) failing to provide an adequate warning to parents of the potential danger. Both the manager of safety and occupation and the manager of loss prevention for Disney testified that the fences around the grassy area adjacent to the moat were not designed to keep children out of the moat but rather were designed for crowd control and to keep people off the grass. The fences separating the walkway from the grassy slopes to the moat were approved at a height of 31 inches, with a 24 inch "stepping distance" between the bottom and top horizontal rails. Disney's own standards required a fence with a minimum 36 inch stepping distance anywhere there was an interface with a water hazard. There was no fence or other barrier directly adjacent to the moat itself. There was evidence presented from which the jury could conclude that a fence with a 36 inch stepping distance would have effectively prevented children of Joel Goode's age from climbing over it, whereas the lower fence could be easily scaled by such children. The Disney employee who designed the fences in question testified that the short fence was not intended as a safety barrier for the moat nor was it adequate for that purpose.
Disney employees testified that they frequently observed children going over the fences into the grassy area surrounding the moat. Additionally, the moat was built to a depth of 5 feet and it was undisputed that the depth of a similar moat at Disneyland (in California) was only between 1½ to 3 feet deep. Regarding the foreseeability of the accident, Disney's supervisor for guest relations testified that in the twelve months preceeding the accident 11,420 children were reported lost at Disney, although in her four years of experience none had been found harmed or injured. Disney had instituted elaborate procedures for reuniting separated children and parents. From the testimony presented there was evidence from which a jury could determine that Disney had failed in its duty to keep and maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition commensurate with the business conducted. Therefore this case involves facts and a rule of law much like those in Mertz v. Krueger, 58 So.2d 160 (Fla.1952) where a guest at a vacation resort fell to the beach from an unguarded bulkhead. In holding that the question of negligence of the owner of the premises was for the jury, the court said:
If there was ever a place where one would not be expected to be on the lookout for pitfalls, booby traps or other dangers, this would seem to be the one.

The courts over the country are committed to the doctrine that whether or not defendants exercised ordinary care to protect their patrons in cases like this is a question for the jury under appropriate instructions. Wells, et ux v. Palm Beach Kennel Club, 160 Fla. 502, 35 So.2d 720.
Id. at 162.
Whether Disney breached its duty of reasonable care to the decedent by leaving the moat unprotected under the circumstances presented here was a factual question to be determined by the jury. It is peculiarly a jury function to determine what precautions are reasonably required in the exercise of a particular duty of due care. Orlando Executive Park v. P.D.R., 402 So.2d 442, 446 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), affirmed, Orlando Executive Park v. Robbins, 433 So.2d 491 (Fla.1983). Similarly, proximate causation was also a jury question. Goode I, at 1156. Based on the evidence presented, the jury found that Disney had not complied with its duty of due care and that this failure proximately caused the child's death, and we will not disturb those findings because the evidence supports them.
Disney also argues that the $1,000,-000 damages awarded to each of Joel's parents for past and future pain and suffering caused by the loss of their son was excessive as a matter of law. In determining this point on appeal, we are guided by the supreme court's statement in Bould v. Touchette, 349 So.2d 1181 (Fla.1977):
In tort cases, damages are to be measured by the jury's discretion. The court should never declare a verdict excessive merely because it is above the amount which the court itself considers the jury should have allowed. The verdict should not be disturbed unless it is so inordinately large as obviously to exceed the maximum limit of a reasonable range within which the jury may properly operate. [citations omitted].
Id. at 1184, 1185. See also Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So.2d 430 (Fla.1978) (record must affirmatively show the impropriety of a verdict for the verdict to be declared excessive). In Winner v. Sharp, 43 So.2d 634 (Fla.1949) in an opinion written by Justice Terrell, the court said:
Those who have not brought a child into the world and loved it and planned for it, and then have it suddenly snatched away from them and killed can hardly have an adequate idea of the mental pain and anguish that one undergoes from such a tragedy. No other affliction so tortures and wears down the physical and nervous system. Psychosymatic illness of a serious nature may follow. The emotions may be unstrung, the nerves put on edge, and the end effect may be a period in a rest home, a mental hospital, serious physical derangement and sometimes death. Damage for mental pain and suffering is one of the late developments in the law and its potentialities are not restricted as they formerly were because so much has been learned of the evil consequences that flow from mental injury.
Id. at 636, 637.
We are unable to say, as a matter of law, that the award was so inordinately large as to exceed the maximum limit of the reasonable range within which the jury could properly operate. There was unrebutted evidence before the trial court that the Goodes suffered almost complete, full personality changes since the loss of Joel and that their grief was overwhelming, genuine and crushing. The jury saw the parents and heard their testimony, and were in a better position to evaluate the reality of their anguish and suffering than are we from a reading of a cold record. We should not substitute our judgment for theirs. Judgment for plaintiffs is hereby
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH, J., concurs.
COBB, J., dissents with opinion.
. Lomas v. West Palm Beach Water Co., 57 So.2d 881 (Fla.1952) and Newby v. West Palm Beach Water Co., 47 So.2d 527 (Fla.1950), also cited by the dissent, dealt with trespassing infant plaintiffs and in both cases the court correctly applied the attractive nuisance doctrine to the facts thereof. With the exception of Kinya v. Lifter, Inc., 489 So.2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the remaining cases cited by the dissent also involved the application of the attractive nuisance doctrine to child trespassers: Starling v. Saha, 451 So.2d 516 (Fla. 5th DCA), pet. for rev. den., 458 So.2d 273 (Fla.1984) (court held that the complaint properly stated a cause of action under the attractive nuisance doctrine where trespassing child drowned in artificial pond); Hendershot v. Kapok Tree Inn, Inc., 203 So.2d 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967) (the attractive nuisance doctrine was held to apply); Adler v. Copeland, 105 So.2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958) (court found the attractive nuisánce doctrine inapplicable as there was no trap and the deceased infant was not a trespasser). In Kinya v. Lifter, Inc., supra, it is difficult to understand why the court discusses the attractive nuisance doctrine, but the important point is the court's recognition that the circumstances presented a factual question for the jury which found that the defendant was not negligent. What is important to note in the attractive nuisance cases and what distinguishes those cases from the case sub judice is that in those cases the children were trespassers on the land where the alleged hazard was located, and did not become trespassers merely by entering the hazard.