Current Events > Family suing University when daughter dies after pancake eating contest

(+) Yeah! (+)

PBusted posted...

What about something like a pop star encouraging his fans to commit suicide to reach fame? Do you think enticing violence shouldn't be a crime either because all the fault is only on the person who actually does it?

Another leading question.

Snoop Dogg saying "Smoke Weed Everyday" can be interpreted as telling people to kill themselves.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

PBusted posted...

What about something like a pop star encouraging his fans to commit suicide to reach fame? Do you think enticing violence shouldn't be a crime either because all the fault is only on the person who actually does it?

Another leading question.

Snoop Dogg saying "Smoke Weed Everyday" can be interpreted as telling people to kill themselves.

You don't know what that phrase means. It's a valid question to the logic he's been using. He claims "encouraging suicide should be ok", asking him to elaborate is a normal step afterwards, but you wouldn't know anything about that.
Also, I'm not talking about mental gymnastic interpretations. I'm talking about direct ones.

fenderbender321 posted...

PBusted posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

Encouraging somebody to commit suicide is certainly morally questionable, but at the end of the day it is just one person voicing their opinion. Yes, people can have influences on others this way, but at the end of the day the suicide is the action of the person committing it, and not the fault of anybody else at all.

Assisting suicide is another matter entirely. It's actively participating in the killing of somebody. I think that it should be legal, but only in certain situations such as terminal medical illnesses that are causing a great deal of pain.

What about something like a pop star encouraging his fans to commit suicide to reach fame? Do you think enticing violence shouldn't be a crime either because all the fault is only on the person who actually does it?

Who are we to judge the actions of people who choose to respond in such a manner?

First of all, suicide should not be a crime. We own our bodies. We should be able to remove ourselves from existence at any time for any reason. That's not an unreasonable stance nor an unpopular opinion.

And since suicide should not be a crime, then what crime should we hold pop stars accountable for when encouraging people to do something that should be legal?

And please don't anyone respond to this post with "But it's not legal", because that's not the point of the discussion we're having. We're having a discussion about whether or not certain things should or shouldn't be legal.

Of course we're not talking about legality. I'm well aware you support many illegal things. So I just want to understand your stance better, you think a pop star advocating suicide should have no legal consequences?
You also did not address enticing violence.

Unfair and fender are the 2 premier contrarian trolls of this board. Stop taking them seriously.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

Everywhere else on the internet, my opinions are met with understanding and agreement to a much further degree than here.

---

fenderbender321 posted...

GiftedACIII posted...

Unfair and fender are the 2 premier contrarian trolls of this board. Stop taking them seriously.

Everywhere else on the internet, my opinions are met with understanding and agreement to a much further degree than here. But, I guess it's my fault for choosing to go to the lion's cage :)

Right you are, people outside the Internet definitely agree that fucking horses is just like fucking humans and that the age of consent should be 9.
---

GiftedACIII posted...

Unfair and fender are the 2 premier contrarian trolls of this board. Stop taking them seriously.

Says it all that the argument for "You should not be responsible for your own actions" boils down to nothing but insults when questioned
---

fenderbender321 posted...

PBusted posted...

Of course we're not talking about legality. I'm well aware you support many illegal things. So I just want to understand your stance better, you think a pop star advocating suicide should have no legal consequences?
You also did not address enticing violence.

Yes, a pop star advocating suicide should have no legal consequences. They've done nothing to hurt anybody. Any suicides by fans that occur after the advocation would be a result of the direct actions carried out by the fans that chose to kill themselves.

So long as the end result is 100% in control of the person committing the violent action, I can't support anything that undermines free speech. As long as somebody isn't making direct threats or assisting with the planning of violence, they should be able to say whatever they want.

Everything happens for a reason. We might not like outcomes when looking at them in a vacuum, but we have little understanding or regard about the impacts on society as a whole.

I see. Well, I do appreciate you helping me understand your stance better. Now I know just how truly worthless your opinion is. By your logic there should be no legal consequences for yelling fire in a crowded theater too. It's a good thing the worst you'll do with your dangerous opinions is shitposting on this board.

UnfairRepresent posted...

GiftedACIII posted...

Unfair and fender are the 2 premier contrarian trolls of this board. Stop taking them seriously.

Says it all that the argument for "You should not be responsible for your own actions" boils down to nothing but insults when questioned

It says it all about your intellect and hypocrisy that you're unable to grasp that organizers are also responsible for their actions. The ones trying to absolve people of personal responsibility is you.

Pancakes might be the most filling food you can eat, like I'm full for 6 hours plus after a full set and I'm a big dude.
---

coolboy11 posted...

Pancakes might be the most filling food you can eat, like I'm full for 6 hours plus after a full set and I'm a big dude.

For me i get full of Pancakes after 2 or 3 but i have plenty of room for other things. Like I won't want to look at another pancake after 3 or so but give me some salty food like Eggs, Bacon, Toast, etc and I can still finish a plate.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

The "yelling fire in a crowded theater" hypothetical has never made any sense to me. First off, what if there was actually a fire? Should they still not yell fire because people will trample and kill each other? What if a crowded building had a fire drill? Couldn't people trample and kill each other during those too? Why not make those illegal?

I think there should be a consequence for yelling fire in a crowded theater. You should be kicked out of that theater for wasting a bunch of people's time. But in the event that people could not escape the building without hurting and trampling each other, it sounds like the person who yelled "fire" was actually doing the owners of that theater a favor by exposing the fact that their building was ill-equipped to handle such an emergency. Either that, or they were exposing the patrons for being ill-prepared on handling the execution of the evacuation. There's no reason to shove or trample people. We learn that in school. Line up and walk out in an orderly fashion. Be calm.

I could go on for days about it.

Sounds like a bit of trouble with nuance and context. But do go on. I'd by lying if I said I don't think your thoughts on this are awkwardly intriguing

PBusted posted...

It says it all about your intellect and hypocrisy that you're unable to grasp that organizers are also responsible for their actions.

i don't dispute that.

I just refute that they are responsible for pie eating or suicide

If the stage collaspes or the pie has cyanide in it, that's their fault.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

PBusted posted...

It says it all about your intellect and hypocrisy that you're unable to grasp that organizers are also responsible for their actions.

i don't dispute that.

I just refute that they are responsible for pie eating or suicide

If the stage collaspes or the pie has cyanide in it, that's their fault.

They are responsible for any direct activities they host.

PBusted posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

PBusted posted...

It says it all about your intellect and hypocrisy that you're unable to grasp that organizers are also responsible for their actions.

i don't dispute that.

I just refute that they are responsible for pie eating or suicide

If the stage collaspes or the pie has cyanide in it, that's their fault.

They are responsible for any direct activities they host.

I don't dispute that.

I just refute that they are responsible for pie eating or suicide

If the stage collaspes or the pie has cyanide in it, that's their fault.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

PBusted posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

PBusted posted...

It says it all about your intellect and hypocrisy that you're unable to grasp that organizers are also responsible for their actions.

i don't dispute that.

I just refute that they are responsible for pie eating or suicide

If the stage collaspes or the pie has cyanide in it, that's their fault.

They are responsible for any direct activities they host.

I don't dispute that.

I just refute that they are responsible for pie eating or suicide

If the stage collaspes or the pie has cyanide in it, that's their fault.

The pancake speed eating was the activity they hosted so yes they're responsible for that up to the required guidelines and the death that resulted from it. Just like if a game show required you to hang yourself they would be held responsible for that too.

PBusted posted...

The pancake speed eating was the activity they hosted so yes they're responsible for that up to the required guidelines and the death that resulted from it.

So if a chick organizes a sack race and you pull out an Uzi and shoot 7 people, it's her fault for organizing it?

I mean she could have had bullet proof vests issued and armed guards complete with invasive strip searches and metal detectors.

That's not how cause and effect works.
PBusted posted...

Just like if a game show required you to hang yourself they would be held responsible for that too.

False equivalence

You're not actually refuting any points. You're just ignoring them.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

PBusted posted...

The pancake speed eating was the activity they hosted so yes they're responsible for that up to the required guidelines and the death that resulted from it.

So if a chick organizes a sack race and you pull out an Uzi and shoot 7 people, it's her fault for organizing it?

I mean she could have had bullet proof vests issued and armed guards complete with invasive strip searches and metal detectors.

That's not how cause and effect works.
PBusted posted...

Just like if a game show required you to hang yourself they would be held responsible for that too.

False equivalence

You're not actually refuting any points. You're just ignoring them.

Someone pulling out an uzi isn't the activity they hosted and has no relation to a sack race. It would be more akin to someone pulling out an Uzi where people have a contest who can knock out the most people with no restrictions on weapons or if the sack race took place over a cliff.
Learning posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

So if a chick organizes a sack race and you pull out an Uzi and shoot 7 people, it's her fault for organizing it?

If you weren't mentally handicapped, you wouldn't be making analogies like this that bare 0 relation to this incident. Do some research on 'wrongful death cases' before you submit more braindead posts

Now stop with your brain dead posts and hypocrisy. Your moronic sack analogy was an actual false equivalence that you used to ignore my points without refuting them. I also just realized your moronic analogy was also a leading question.

You haven't actually posted a retort, all you've done is screamed insults.

Why is it that to you someone comitting suicide or choking from eating copious amount of pies someone else's actions, but them pulling a gun and shooting someone else isn't?

You said "This isn't the activity they hosted" but neither is choking.

The guys running the show didn't force anyone to put pies in their mouth. That makes it not their responsibility.

The fact you have absolutely no counter for this beyond insults and nonsense comparisons to suicides just confirms that you know this is true.

Someone else is not responsible for what you put inside your own body.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

You haven't actually posted a retort, all you've done is screamed insults.

Why is it that to you someone comitting suicide or choking from eating copious amount of pies someone else's actions, but them pulling a gun and shooting someone else isn't?

You said "This isn't the activity they hosted" but neither is choking.

The guys running the show didn't force anyone to put pies in their mouth. That makes it not their responsibility.

The fact you have absolutely no counter for this beyond insults and nonsense comparisons to suicides just confirms that you know this is true.

Someone else is not responsible for what you put inside your own body.

I've made no insults this topic, just accurate descriptions. Speed eating is the activity they hosted which led to choking which they didn't properly prepare for. Only mental people don't understand context. If the event was about a knock out free for all with no restrictions on weapons or security to check people they would be responsible for someone pulling an Uzi too. Same as if the sack race took place on a slippery cliff with no railings. You know this. You just feel the need to play stupid because you know you're wrong but can't let go of your ego.
And yes, that is their responsibility. It's even written in the law. It's why all those cases sided with the plaintiff. inb4 "appurl2authurdur" You have no retorts or evidence to the contrary other than "hurr durr because I said so".

PBusted posted...

I've made no insults this topic, just accurate descriptions

You've spent the entire topic ignoring what everyone says and calling them stupid and mentally ill.

PBusted posted...

Only mental people don't understand context.

"I don't insult people who disagree with me and I can't retort"

If the event was about a knock out free for all with no restrictions on weapons or security to check people they would be responsible for someone pulling an Uzi too. Same as if the sack race took place on a slippery cliff with no railings. You know this. You just feel the need to play stupid because you know you're wrong but can't let go of your ego.
And yes, that is their responsibility. It's even written in the law. It's why all those cases sided with the plaintiff. inb4 "appurl2authurdur" You have no retorts or evidence to the contrary other than "hurr durr because I said so".

I don't know the case law but the comparison that springs to mind is commonsense consumption laws where people tried to sue McDonalds for making them fat after they ate copious amounts of burgers and had strokes, to which the courts said "That's dumb."

I know that's for long term eating, but the principle is the same, prevent people from using frivious lawsuits to escape personality accountability. Specific case law probably exists which some poor overpaid lawyer for the Uni is probably putting together as you read this message.

"I consented to eat copious amounts of pie and then got sick/died because I ate copious amounts of pie." is a direct result of personal responsbility.

Sure if the university put arsenic in the pies or fired the pies at the contestants from a shotgun, the responsbility shifts.

But "It's unis fault I put copious amounts of pies in my mouth!" is kinda shameful. Take responsbility for your actions.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

You've spent the entire topic ignoring what everyone says and calling them stupid and mentally ill.

Those are accurate descriptions.
UnfairRepresent posted...

"I don't insult people who disagree with me and I can't retort"

That's not an insult, just an objective statement.
UnfairRepresent posted...

I don't know the case law but the comparison that springs to mind is commonsense consumption laws where people tried to sue McDonalds for making them fat after they ate copious amounts of burgers and had strokes, to which the courts said "That's dumb."

I know that's for long term eating, but the principle is the same, prevent people from using frivious lawsuits to escape personality accountability. Specific case law probably exists which some poor overpaid lawyer for the Uni is probably putting together as you read this message.

"I consented to eat copious amounts of pie and then got sick/died because I ate copious amounts of pie." is a direct result of personal responsbility.

Sure if the university put arsenic in the pies or fired the pies at the contestants from a shotgun, the responsbility shifts.

But "It's unis fault I put copious amounts of pies in my mouth!" is kinda shameful. Take responsbility for your actions.

Wrong. You're making false equivalency analogies. This is akin to

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/jury-rules-radio-station-jennifer-strange-water-drinking/story?id=8970712
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants
https://www.denverpost.com/2017/04/04/voodoo-doughnut-suspends-eating-challenge-after-death/
As Learning said learn to research wrongful death and negligence cases because you are incredibly ignorant on how it works.
Also you failed to address the examples with pulling a Uzi at a knock out free for all or having a sack race on a cliff would make them responsible for the death caused by those.

pbusted seems unhinged about this...too bad he is wrong
---

I think personal responsibility only applies to the people who sign up to participate in my dangerous contest. I am not responsible for running a contest that adheres to any sort of safety standards. I won't do everything I can to inform my participants of the risks involved. If they don't understand the risks then that lies 100% on their personal responsibility. There is no point and there never will be a point where people who organize these contests are ever held to any sort of standard or regulation.

The real point is that the girl was personally responsible and the ultimate risk was death from choking and she did pay the price. Can't pay a higher price than dying rom your actions.

The complication is that the school shares some of that responsibility and thus must pay a price too in the many millions range, because they were clearly negligent. There were a long list of things they could have done to reduce risk and they didn't.

Personal responsibility applies to more than individuals. It can also apply to large organizations that host events resulting in wrongful death lawsuits. Believe it or not, but these types of accidents are avoidable for many reasons and some of that responsibility lies with the organizers of the event.

Why do people want groups/organizers/corporations to do whatever they went without being held liable when contributing to a death?
---

andel posted...

pbusted seems unhinged about this...too bad he is wrong

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/jury-rules-radio-station-jennifer-strange-water-drinking/story?id=8970712 .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants
https://www.denverpost.com/2017/04/04/voodoo-doughnut-suspends-eating-challenge-after-death/

PBusted posted...

That's not an insult, just an objective statement.

"You're mentally ill!"

"That's not an insult."

Jesus christ .

PBusted posted...

Wrong. You're making false equivalency analogies. This is akin to

https://www.denverpost.com/2017/04/04/voodoo-doughnut-suspends-eating-challenge-after-death/
https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/jury-rules-radio-station-jennifer-strange-water-drinking/story?id=8970712
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants

As Learning said learn to research wrongful death cases because you are incredibly ignorant on how it works.

Did you read your own cases?

The first one had nothing to do with law or court, the place pulled it's own contest out of respect to a dude who died.

And the third McDonalds one is an infamous frivilous case with a terible decision that McDonalds settled on because fighting the appeal case which was being dragged out was more expensive than a settlement.

Only relevant example was the water one and that went through because they fucked up the waiver. Making the people who entered agree that they could be shown and talked about for the contest. It had nothing to do with health or inability to sue.

Personal responsbility didn't shift because she died, it shifted because they didn't get her to agree to the risks.

If you want to argue that this pie eating girl didn't sign a proper wavier than go ahead but that's not what you've been arguing to this point

Once again you flip flopped.

All your examples sucked and were irrelevant (well the water one was only mostly irrelevant)
---

TommyG663513 posted...

I think personal responsibility only applies to the people who sign up to participate in my dangerous contest. I am not responsible for running a contest that adheres to any sort of safety standards. I won't do everything I can to inform my participants of the risks involved. If they don't understand the risks then that lies 100% on their personal responsibility. There is no point and there never will be a point where people who organize these contests are ever held to any sort of standard or regulation.

The real point is that the girl was personally responsible and the ultimate risk was death from choking and she did pay the price. Can't pay a higher price than dying rom your actions.

The complication is that the school shares some of that responsibility and thus must pay a price too in the many millions range, because they were clearly negligent. There were a long list of things they could have done to reduce risk and they didn't.

Personal responsibility applies to more than individuals. It can also apply to large organizations that host events resulting in wrongful death lawsuits. Believe it or not, but these types of accidents are avoidable for many reasons and some of that responsibility lies with the organizers of the event.

Agreed.
---

Also, since when were we talking about pies?
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

"You're mentally ill!"

"That's not an insult."

Jesus christ .

I said only mental people don't understand context, an objective fact.
UnfairRepresent posted...

Did you read your own cases?

The first one had nothing to do with law or court, the place pulled it's own contest out of respect to a dude who died.

And the third McDonalds one is an infamous frivilous case with a terible decision that McDonalds settled on because fighting the appeal case which was being dragged out was more expensive than a settlement.

Only relevant example was the water one and that went through because they f***ed up the waiver. Making the people who entered agree that they could be shown and talked about for the contest. It had nothing to do with health or inability to sue.

Personal responsbility didn't shift because she died, it shifted because they didn't get her to agree to the risks.

If you want to argue that this pie eating girl didn't sign a proper wavier than go ahead but that's not what you've been arguing to this point

Once again you flip flopped.

All your examples sucked and were irrelevant (well the water one was only mostly irrelevant)

They pulled their contests because of the possibility of being hit with a wrongful death charge. It's the reason CBS has a policy on instantly removing user suicide or violence threads because they might be held responsible for it.

Again, you ignore that enticing violence is a crime.

It's clearly not a frivolous case if it won. A news reporters and some other insignificant idiots might oppose the ruling but there are even more idiots who think abortion is murder.

Now you're just making shit up. There wasn't anything about not signing a wavier. It actually says the opposite.
"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."

Waviers don't override negligence and wrongful death laws.
The water case is the exact same situation as this one.
Blue_Thunder posted...

The complication is that the school shares some of that responsibility and thus must pay a price too in the many millions range, because they were clearly negligent. There were a long list of things they could have done to reduce risk and they didn't.

Personal responsibility applies to more than individuals. It can also apply to large organizations that host events resulting in wrongful death lawsuits. Believe it or not, but these types of accidents are avoidable for many reasons and some of that responsibility lies with the organizers of the event.

Yep, this is something UnfairRepresent is unable to grasp but he's always been like that.

PBusted posted...

They pulled their contests because of the possibility of being hit with a wrongful death charge

Jesus Christ.

You're just allergic to admitting fault aint you?

It's clearly not a frivolous case if it won. A news reporters and some other insignificant idiots might oppose the ruling but there are even more idiots who think abortion is murder.

Then why did they accept the settlement instead of fighting the appeal?

I mean they already won. If they didn't fear the appeal was going to lose then they would have no issue.

Now you're just making shit up.

No. Unlike you I actually look at things instead of ranting. You just didn't know this.

There wasn't anything about not signing a wavier. It actually says the opposite.
"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."

That's the point. The "Release" was a wavier to make the results of the thing public and talk about it. It never said anything about health or risks. So it didn't help them

Waviers don't override negligence and wrongful death laws.

True but irrelevant.

It's not a wrongful death if they signed the wavier. That's literally how they lost the suit. The chick who died never declared that she was aware of the risks.

The water case is the exact same situation as this one.

Except its not for a multitude of reasons you intentionally ignore.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Jesus Christ.

You're just allergic to admitting fault aint you?

More of your hypocrisy.
UnfairRepresent posted...

Then why did they accept the settlement instead of fighting the appeal?

I mean they already won. If they didn't fear the appeal was going to lose then they would have no issue.

Probably because they're fighting a corporation?
Why did Mcdonalds try to settle rather than win with their superior lawyers and wealth if it was truly frivolous?
UnfairRepresent posted...

No. Unlike you I actually look at things instead of ranting. You just didn't know this.

That's the point. The "Release" was a wavier to make the results of the thing public and talk about it. It never said anything about health or risks. So it didn't help them

True but irrelevant.

It's not a wrongful death if they signed the wavier. That's literally how they lost the suit. The chick who died never declared that she was aware of the risks.

Wait, are you actually this clueless? They said "contestants (which includes her) had signed a release so we (the radio station) aren't responsible" which means she DID sign a wavier declaring she's aware of the risk, no responsibility can be held for the radio station yada yada. And yet they still lost. Waviers that "you're aware of the risks" doesn't override wrongful death or negligence laws. This is exactly like the situation here. Where did the pancake eating girl declare she was aware of the risks? There might not have been a wavier here at all
UnfairRepresent posted...

Except its not for a multitude of reasons you intentionally ignore.

List those "multitude of reasons". You can't.

PBusted posted...

Probably because they're fighting a corporation?

But they already won.

Why did Mcdonalds try to settle rather than win with their superior lawyers and wealth if it was truly frivolous?

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

PBusted posted...

Wait, are you actually this clueless? They said "contestants (which includes her) had signed a release so we (the radio station) aren't responsible" which means she DID sign a wavier declaring she's aware of the risk,

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.

PBusted posted...

Where did the pancake eating girl declare she was aware of the risks?

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.

PBusted posted...

List those "multitude of reasons". You can't.

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.
---

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.

PBusted posted...

And that applies even more to the plaintiff. It's well known that big corporations take advantage and are hard to fight

Possible but unlikely.

They already won the case, the idea that the plaintiff had the money to fight the case until a judgement but not afford the appeal is very suspect. And if it was true the last thing the plaintif with such little money would want to do is let McDonalds ensure that they get less money.

Meanwhile the idea that McDonalds didn't want to spend more money on the case is not.

Speculation since the details are unknown but you're confidently arguing an absurdly unlikely sequence of events without justification or logic. Just rather than admit its a poor example of why other people are responsible for your actions.

PBusted posted...

Where did it say that? Directly from the article

Stop reading clickbait articles and actually look up the case dude.

Only you will never do that because you refuse to admit fault.

PBusted posted...

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

And you have not demonstrated how the uni has failed to do this. You've just said they have then ranted mostly incoherantly.

You've just ignored, insulted and flip flopped while saying the uni is responsible for the actions of other people.

Hell the entire wavier thing isn't even about personal responsbility.

PBusted posted...

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".

False equivalence again.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Speculation since the details are unknown but you're confidently arguing an absurdly unlikely sequence of events without justification or logic. Just rather than admit its a poor example of why other people are responsible for your actions.

The speculation comes from you. At the end of the day, the verdict that the jury declared was that the plaintiff was the victor. The rest of it is excuses and you reaching for speculation
.UnfairRepresent posted...

Stop reading clickbait articles and actually look up the case dude.

Only you will never do that because you refuse to admit fault.

So abcnews is clickbait to you? I've looked at a few other articles and none of them mention a waiver about speaking publically that you're talking about. Post the article where you read it.

UnfairRepresent posted...

And you have not demonstrated how the uni has failed to do this. You've just said they have then ranted mostly incoherantly.

You've just ignored, insulted and flip flopped while saying the uni is responsible for the actions of other people.

Hell the entire wavier thing isn't even about personal responsbility.

Actually the only thing I mentioned in the beginning was that "they did it to themselves" isn't an excuse as is with the water case or the Michelle Carter case who only messaged her boyfriend to commit suicide via text and you insisted that it is regardless of context. Context is everything. Which is why I've put "with the proper guidelines" in every of my post to signify that it depends on if they followed to the guidelines or not. If they did, then they're not responsible. If they didn't they are. You've been insisting the whole time that the personal responsibility only lies on the person unless they directly sabotage it and ignoring negligence.
UnfairRepresent posted...

False equivalence again.

The comparison is that simply signing a waiver doesn't resolve the organizer from wrongful death and negligence crimes. It's a logical comparison.

Nice.
---

VipaGTS posted...

Yea I feel like if youre going to have a mass contest like this, where potential life threatening problems could arise, its the universities responsibility to have a full medical team at hand just in case...not a few nursing students who just happened to be there. People like Matt Stonie and them train constantly to participate in these contests the right way and even they get medical people on hand. Accidents happen, especially when the participants have no idea what theyre doing.

Actually this
---