California Jury Awards 16.5 million in Radio Station Water Drinking Contest Fatatlity

[CaffeineHat]

A few points that I wanted to add here. First of all, I'm not at all interested in discussing the amount of the award as much as the fact of the jury decision. The corporate entity that owns the station fired many if not all who were involved and is on the record as saying they will abide by the jury decision. The award amount could easily be adjusted or reduced. I'm intersted in culpability as it relates here.

A lot of people want to blame the woman involved. I have a hard time ignoring the fact that this stunt was a product either of ignorance, negligence or both. It sounds like a few of the on-air guys knew the dangers when they stated (falsely?) that all of the contestants knew of the dangers and had signed waivers (this was not the case).

Later, another on-air personality asks if this is dangerous and several of the voices speculate and then come to the erroneous conclusion that it is not.

Should contests like this be checked out, vetted, and endorsed by the station and its owners? Should on-air staff be allowed to dream up whatever they think would be a good contest and put it on the air? Is it appropriate to hold the station owners responsible for the employees actions if the employees were on the air as agents of the company? Does the fact that "the woman should have known better" as some commentators have opined have any place in this argument or should we be able to feel safe in the concept that a radio station would not knowingly endanger us in the name of a few laughs and a promotional contest?
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/jury-rules-radio-station-jennifer-strange-water-drinking/story?id=8970712

[grapabeaux]

I don't think this resolves everything, but don't the contestants usually sign a release before entering such contests? If so, or if not, did that affect the allocation of fault?

[CaffeineHat]

I don't think this resolves everything, but don't the contestants usually sign a release before entering such contests? If so, or if not, did that affect the allocation of fault?
They signed a release that allowed them to broadcast the contest, there was no waiver of liabilty but even if there were, a waiver of liability could have been nullified by a good lawyer in the event of death as was the case here. She had signed no waiver and upper management was not aware of this contest until it was being broadcast.

Even the Guiness book of records has stopped publishing or soliciting eating or drinking records due to the risk involved.

[stoked]

What about those pie eating contests and hot dog eating contests? To shove food down like that is scarey and a big risk. I don't think that anyone but the participant should be liable. It's a stupid thing to do in the first place.

[CaffeineHat]

What about those pie eating contests and hot dog eating contests? To shove food down like that is scarey and a big risk. I don't think that anyone but the participant should be liable. It's a stupid thing to do in the first place.

I don't disagree that eating contests are gross and unnecessary, but with food, you usually get sick before you're in danger. It's not the same as water drinking. Additionally, really big contests like the one at Coney Island for hot dog eating are monitored, have medical personnell present and if someone complains of pain or illness, they are treated. This woman's complaints of pain went unanswered. The ignorance of risk expressed by on-air staff seems significant here.

I don't know how else to put it, but I don't classify this in the same category as hot dog eating. If for no other reason than it is possible to drink yourself to death with water, far easier than it is to eat yourself to death. In addition, the air staff ignored the warnings of callers.

[JediMindTrick]

In addition, the air staff ignored the warnings of callers.

Including some who were medical personnel telling them how dangerous this was.

[mysticbeauty_nbeast]

This story unfolded in my home town of Sacramento. Our local radio station was the station in question. This type of promotional off the wall contest was usual for them...their style if you will.

I listened to half the broadcast on the radio that day...listened as several nurses and I believe a doctor called in to warn the radio personalities of the dangers of high water consumption without re-leaving one's self. The woman in question, along with the other contestants heard these caller's and their comments/warnings...yet she stayed along with other contestants, drinking even more water and 'holding it' hoping to win a stupid game console.

Now...hours later (that evening on the news) it comes up that this woman died. did she go to a doctor? No. did she try and get any help immediately after the contest by going into the E.R.? No. did she complain of any type of ailment or issue after the contest? No. This jury made an emotional decision based not on what did or did not happen..but based their verdict on a story of a mother with children who died trying to get her boys a game console because they were too poor to afford one on their monthly salary.

Sad ending...sure. did she do it to herself..yup. Was she warned again and again of the dangers of her actions? Yes...as were the others who participated in the events. Entercom has the money...so lawyers followed the money and got the largest award they could...not based on the action..but based on how much was in that business account. Had this story happened say to a business who didn't have deep pockets..do any of you really think this type of award or settlement would have happened? I don't.

Whole things a worthless effort in nanny-fying the people...meaning ...nothing you do is your own damn fault...if...IF the business or person attached to the stupid thing has money or deep pockets. That's the real story here folks...:whistle:

~Mysty

[CaffeineHat]

This story unfolded in my home town of Sacramento. Our local radio station was the station in question. This type of promotional off the wall contest was usual for them...their style if you will.

I listened to half the broadcast on the radio that day...listened as several nurses and I believe a doctor called in to warn the radio personalities of the dangers of high water consumption without re-leaving one's self. The woman in question, along with the other contestants heard these caller's and their comments/warnings...yet she stayed along with other contestants, drinking even more water and 'holding it' hoping to win a stupid game console.

Now...hours later (that evening on the news) it comes up that this woman died. did she go to a doctor? No. did she try and get any help immediately after the contest by going into the E.R.? No. did she complain of any type of ailment or issue after the contest? No. This jury made an emotional decision based not on what did or did not happen..but based their verdict on a story of a mother with children who died trying to get her boys a game console because they were too poor to afford one on their monthly salary.

Sad ending...sure. did she do it to herself..yup. Was she warned again and again of the dangers of her actions? Yes...as were the others who participated in the events. Entercom has the money...so lawyers followed the money and got the largest award they could...not based on the action..but based on how much was in that business account. Had this story happened say to a business who didn't have deep pockets..do any of you really think this type of award or settlement would have happened? I don't.

Whole things a worthless effort in nanny-fying the people...meaning ...nothing you do is your own damn fault...if...IF the business or person attached to the stupid thing has money or deep pockets. That's the real story here folks...:whistle:

~Mysty
So you're saying the radio station and its employees were not culpable for creating a contest that they didn't sufficiently research, and should not have stopped the contest when they heard the calls? Furthermore, several of the DJ's can be heard on the tape asking if this is fatal, laughing and making jokes about it. The reason the Sacramento police moved on this is BECAUSE of those comments. If the radio boys and girl had any idea that this might end badly, their failure to act responsibly by having medical staff present was pure negligence.

Sorry. I don't buy it. I don't think the verdict pure emotion either. By the time many of the calls were made, most of the contestants were already sick. She was complaining of headache on the air, indicative of brain swelling. The unfortunate reality of hyponatremia is that it is very difficult to treat but remarkably easy to prevent.

Further, the corporate entity had a rule on the books prohibiting "consumption" contests without medical personnell present. If the ignorance of the contestant is not a defense, the ignorance of the air-staff should not be either. I suspect Entercom's response to this case is because they realize exactly how liable they were in this case. One enters such a contest with the assumption that the contest holder has made provisions for their safety. That's not "nannyfication", it's the laws of liability and risk.

Again, I wasn't discussing the volume of the award, I was discussing the verdict.

[mysticbeauty_nbeast]

So you're saying the radio station and its employees were not culpable for creating a contest that they didn't didn't sufficiently research, and should not have stopped the contest when they heard the calls? Sorry. I don't buy it. I don't think it's pure emotion either. Additionally, by the time many of the calls were made, most of the contestants were already sick. She was complaining of headache on the air, indicative of brain swelling. The unfortunate reality of hypernatremia is that it is very difficult to treat but remarkably easy to prevent.

Further, the corporate entity had a rule on the books prohibiting "consumption" contests without medical personnell present. If the ignorance of the contestant is not a defense, the ignorance of the air-staff should not be either. I suspect Entercom's response to this case is because they realize exactly how liable they were in this case. One enters such a contest with the assumption that the contest holder has made provisions for their safety. That's not "nannyfication", it's the laws of liability and risk.

Again, I wasn't discussing the volume of the award, I was discussing the verdict.

I disagree with just about everything you posted.......but ok, ...fine...let's talk about the verdict only...I believe it was an emotional choice provided by this jury...not a practical or rational verdict that was handed down. Granted, we can easily talk about self responsibility here...as in no other contestants died due to this promo...no other contestants sued due to high medical bills due to high consumptions of water health issues...no other contestants pushed their own boundaries into self inflicted injury just to get some stupid game console..this woman did. And that's what the real sore in this whole story is...this woman self inflicted injury upon herself and her family made someone else pay for her own stupidity. The jury awarding her/her family anything sends a dangerous message imo.

I listened to that radio show that day. Hell, their offices are just down the street from me. The callers during the contest could be heard by everyone...the radio personalities and contestants alike. Nurses and other medical professionals called in, warning of the dangers. So don't give me the whole 'they didn't know' bit...they did know..and chose to push it in order to win a 300 dollar console. How stupid..I mean really.

this jury made an emotional choice and could do so due to deep pockets of Entercom. Had this been some neighborhood guy putting up a fun block party type prize, you wouldn't have even heard about this story..plain and simple. Deep pockets means you can dig for gold until the cows come home...end of story. :whistle:

~Mysty

[CaffeineHat]

I disagree with just about everything you posted.......but ok, ...fine...let's talk about the verdict only...I believe it was an emotional choice provided by this jury...not a practical or rational verdict that was handed down. Granted, we can easily talk about self responsibility here...as in no other contestants died due to this promo...no other contestants sued due to high medical bills due to high consumptions of water health issues...no other contestants pushed their own boundaries into self inflicted injury just to get some stupid game console..this woman did. And that's what the real sore in this whole story is...this woman self inflicted injury upon herself and her family made someone else pay for her own stupidity. The jury awarding her/her family anything sends a dangerous message imo.

I listened to that radio show that day. Hell, their offices are just down the street from me. The callers during the contest could be heard by everyone...the radio personalities and contestants alike. Nurses and other medical professionals called in, warning of the dangers. So don't give me the whole 'they didn't know' bit...they did know..and chose to push it in order to win a 300 dollar console. How stupid..I mean really.

this jury made an emotional choice and could do so due to deep pockets of Entercom. Had this been some neighborhood guy putting up a fun block party type prize, you wouldn't have even heard about this story..plain and simple. Deep pockets means you can dig for gold until the cows come home...end of story. :whistle:

~Mysty
Actually, I think the reason we heard this story is because the disc jockeys can be heard ridiculing contestants. Sorry, the DJ's stupidity trumps that of the contestants, and yeah people will do lots of things if they're desperate for money which is exactly why a contest that could result in death is inadvisable.

If you read the jury's responses, many of the jurors were not reacting to the plaintif's story but rather to the callous stupidity of the radio station staff. Nope, they should have known better. Also, Trish has changed her name and is working in Orlando and refuses to talk about the story. The other two are trying to sue for wrongful termination. Sorry, if someone dies as a result of your radio stunt, you really need to get out of radio.

*Edited addendum-- IF the dj's were aware of the risk, and IF they had notified the contestants and IF they had the contestants sign a waiver stipulating that they were notified of the dangers, it would be one thing. But to say that all contestants of all contests assume all responsibilities and are inherently aware of all dangers is somewhat unrealistic. The contestant should have some comfort in the knowledge that the contest giver is not willingly placing them at risk.

[FidelisAdMortem]

I think its ridiculous that people become millionaires b/c someone dies.

[slick_trip]

So you're saying the radio station and its employees were not culpable for creating a contest that they didn't sufficiently research, and should not have stopped the contest when they heard the calls? Furthermore, several of the DJ's can be heard on the tape asking if this is fatal, laughing and making jokes about it. The reason the Sacramento police moved on this is BECAUSE of those comments. If the radio boys and girl had any idea that this might end badly, their failure to act responsibly by having medical staff present was pure negligence.

Sorry. I don't buy it. I don't think the verdict pure emotion either. By the time many of the calls were made, most of the contestants were already sick. She was complaining of headache on the air, indicative of brain swelling. The unfortunate reality of hyponatremia is that it is very difficult to treat but remarkably easy to prevent.

Further, the corporate entity had a rule on the books prohibiting "consumption" contests without medical personnell present. If the ignorance of the contestant is not a defense, the ignorance of the air-staff should not be either. I suspect Entercom's response to this case is because they realize exactly how liable they were in this case. One enters such a contest with the assumption that the contest holder has made provisions for their safety. That's not "nannyfication", it's the laws of liability and risk.

Again, I wasn't discussing the volume of the award, I was discussing the verdict.

i agree with this response.

all involved clearly turned a blind eye (deaf ear) to the warnings received. those presenting the activity will always be more responsible than those participating. i support that discrepancy as well.