Then why isn't the store who allows people to line up, camp out, trample others etc. liable when someone gets injured?

.... I think the "brats" have stupid parents. Kids are the result of their up bringing. Before we sling at the kids, lets be sure we take the shots at the parents. By the way, just because your kids don't have a system, my guess is at one time or another someone thought they were brats.

Someone, me, has thought they were brats. Thank you. But they are a fraction of bratty than most of the kids out there. I think it is BECAUSE they have not been given their every desire.

And you are wrong, stores ARE liable for the safe conditions of their property. Just ask any store manager who has had someone fall or be injured in their store. It's a lucky day when that store manager doesn't see a doctor's bill or an attorney's letter.

She should have known better, but the radio station shouldn't have opened the gate to the pasture and let these intellectual cattle wander out onto the train tracks either.

Before you get the idea that you might think that I think kids every whim should be given into, don't. I agree to a pretty large extent of what you say about how you are raising your kids (at least as it pertains to the granting of every want).

Who is liable for laying on the sidewalk waiting in line for a system and the person laying there gets severe frost bite? Safe condition of property? Can't control the outside temp. What is the stores responsibility here?

That is right. You can't. Those are OUTSIDE conditions that are uncontrollable. I think your analogy is flawed. Introducing increasing amounts of water or stopping a contest IS a controllable.

I think a better comparison would be the Great White show. The management of the bar and the tour manager did not PLAN for indoor fireworks to create an inferno that would cost 100 people their lives. But one could assume that would be a POSSIBILITY and thus might take precautions to make certain that it did not happen. Likewise, those in attendance might see indoor fireworks and think 'this place could become a tinderbox.'

Perhaps I'm just old or maybe too anal but I'd be one of those watching the fireworks and looking to see where the exits were. Now, you could say the people who didn't look for exits or leave if they sensed danger were responsible for not knowing and thus responsible for their own deaths. BUT, those people in attendance also had a belief that the promoters had taken every necessary precaution to ensure the safety of their show BEFOREHAND. That assumption cost them their lives but it also cost those responsible prison time because they had NOT done what they should have.

The same could be said for the contest sponsors. The participants were there by choice. But they also had an assumption that the radio station would not intentionally sponsor something they knew would be life threatening. They also could assume that if there was a question about the safety that precautions were taken to ensure such concerns were addressed. Thus, they participated in the event under the belief, assumed, that the radio station sponsoring the event had the safety considerations covered.

Like those in Rhode Island, one lost her life because of the false assumption. Her assumption did/does not absolve from any liability the sponsors of the event.

I don't think my analogy is that flawed.
In both cases, the individual chooses. I choose to drink the water, I choose to freeze my arse off.

If I follow your analogy, it would appear that the stores should shoo customers away since they were endangering themselves and the store knew that they were endangering themselves.

To end this for me, I will agree that both have responsibility, but to put this more in the hands of the radio station would be unfair.
Part of what is wrong with society, is that no one has to take resonsibility for their actions if they can get some lawyer to deflect it elsewhere.
That is sad

one final note....maybe the real culprit in all of this is Nintendo?

And they'll come back to thank you for that someday. Most likely when you're sleeping.

The really sad thing is that the woman couldn't afford to buy a $300 video game for her kids and resorted to this to make them happy. To get her kids what they wanted for Christmas.

Sad.

I stood in two lines for a total of 6 hours, and the first time I was two too late, and the second time it wasn't even close.

That's as far as I would go. Now they can wait until next year. Maybe it will be cheaper, but they'll like it, or else.

A waiver doesn't ****ing matter. It's a criminal investigation.
I can sign a waiver that says I agree to let you shoot me in the face but if you do it you'll still go to prison.

Good analogy.

ever notice analogy is like the study of anal.

I damn near did the same thing years ago to beat a drug test. Did nothing but drink water all day, including pineapple juice and grapefruit juice. No food all day and night- nothing but liquids. By the time I took the test in the morning, I had flushed my entire body out...But, I was damn near comatose too. White as hell, shaking, and vomited all day long the next day.

But, hey, I passed the test. :D

It serves to illustrate the point that a waiver doesn't mean dick in a criminal matter, it's mostly a civil thing to ward off lawsuits.

For what? Allowing a bunch of idiots to be a bunch of idiots?

It's not like they told these people they'd be Ok, these people were told the could die and that other people HAD died from this. At one point this dumbass who died was on the ground and had to be picked up by someone else to continue, then after she drank MORE water she went home, despite having severe symptoms.

WTF? So every one of use should be fined for our participation in cadmonkey's stupidity?