LogFAQs > #911873236

UnfairRepresent posted...

Because the cost of fighting in the appeal would be a lot more than the settlement.

And that applies even more to the plaintiff. It's well known that big corporations take advantage and are hard to fight. There's an entire movie on it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Civil_Action_(film). And of course the Flint case.
UnfairRepresent posted...

No she didn't.

She signed a release that said they could talk about it and her publically. The shit they said about her declaring she was aware of the risk was wrong. Which is why the case ended the way it did.

Again, why are you so unable to admit fault. Stop ignoring and lying.

Where did it say that? Directly from the article

"Those people that are drinking all that water can get sick and possibly die from water intoxication," Brooks said, to which disc jockeys replied they "were aware of that" and that contestants had signed a release "so we're not responsible."

There's nothing about making things public. The disc jockeys said the contestants signed a release saying that they're not responsible. This is exactly the kind of waiver where someone says "they're aware of the risks" that you're talking about. You're making up a fantasy just so you don't have to admit fault.
UnfairRepresent posted...

Most eating contests have a wavier similar to this:

http://www.bu.edu/studentactivities/files/2014/08/Eating-Contest-Waiver.pdf

At this point the University have made no comment on whether or not she signed a wavier.

If she didn't, her family's lawyer may be able to claim that she was not aware of the risks of eating copious amounts of food because she's immensely stupid. And therefore it's not her responsbility.

But you've switched horses. You have at no point argued that the responsbility is the Unis because of a lack of a wavier, you argued that the uni is at fault because the girl ate pancakes and therefore is not responsible for her own actions. Which I disagree with.

It's is incorrect as a view in my opinion and legally there isn't really much of a case for it that I am aware of and you have certainly not provided one.

In my very first post I said "People who organize things badly without the proper care need to take personal responsibility for their own consequences" That means proper safety guidelines which include waivers though waivers still wouldn't protect them from being held responsible if they didn't reach proper safety levels eg. game shows can't have russian roulette as an event even if they make a waiver saying "I agree to possibly play real russian roulette if I'm picked".
UnfairRepresent posted...

Eating contest isn't the same as not peeing
Eating contest is short term
Water girl issue was over a wavier.
People running the contest repeatedly openly showed incompotence towards doing so and lied.
Profressionals making medical judgements on point were ignored.
Setting, scenario, Attitude wasn't the same.

Honestly the only real connection seems to be that both people who died were girls.

Irrelevant.
So is not peeing.
No it wasn't.
This is what I'm talking about. These university staff might also have shown incompetence. The whole point is that you can be charged for your incompetence and negligence even if death was by their own hands. You're just immediately dismissing it as "she did it to herself so it doesn't matter"
That doesn't affect culpability.
Irrelevant.

The connection is that they're both cases where the victim died by their own actions.