Very sad and "strange"

[shmokes]

Woman dies trying to win a Wii console for her kids

[sphetr2]

Woman dies trying to win a Wii console for her kids

Saw this on Joystiq earlier- really sad, and really, REALLY embarrassing. Water intoxication is  serious. Shame to those who say "you can never drink too much water"

I did find the title of the competition funny, however...something like "hold your wee for a wii".

[Howard_Casto]

I just wonder what idiot thought of this promotion.  I'm an idiot when it comes to medical stuff but even I know that drinking too much water not to metnion holding it in, is very dangerous, particularly to women.

[MajorLag]

Even if the people putting on this contest didn't know that drinking too much water could kill you, I'd have thought it'd be standard practice to consult doctors on any contest involving any form of ingestion/imbibition.

[TOK]

Well, on the bright side, her family will probably win 40 million dollars in a lawsuit.

[Naru]

They should win money in a lawsuit.
I seen this on the news.
I really had no prior idea that you could
drink too much water.
It is common knowledge in the medical field though.
To drink 2 gallons of water in an hour dilutes the salt from your body,
and you will die whether you pee or not.
Seriously it wouldn't have taken much effort
to find this out before holding such a competition.
Obviously they spent more time with the catchy contest line
"Hold your wee for a Wii."
I wonder if there are guidelines for this sort of thing
in competitive eating contests?
They probably have doctors at hand.

[Naru]

They should win money in a lawsuit.
I seen this on the news.
I really had no prior idea that you could
drink too much water.
It is common knowledge in the medical field though.
To drink 2 gallons of water in an hour dilutes the salt from your body,
and you will die whether you pee or not.
Seriously it wouldn't have taken much effort
to find this out before holding such a competition.
Obviously they spent more time with the catchy contest line
"Hold your wee for a Wii."
I wonder if there are guidelines for this sort of thing
in competitive eating contests?
They probably have doctors at hand.

[shmokes]

And we have now entered the Twilight Zone.

[farmecologist]

Did they not have *any* medical staff on site?

One of our local stations recently had a "what would you do for a PS3" contest:

      http://www.92kqrs.com/PhotoWall.asp?id=26233

They had medical staff AND police on hand in case of any medical emergencies.

[TOK]

Did they not have *any* medical staff on site?

One of our local stations recently had a "what would you do for a PS3" contest:

      http://www.92kqrs.com/PhotoWall.asp?id=26233

They had medical staff AND police on hand in case of any medical emergencies.

Only read the article linked on IGN, but it sounds like this happened after she left the contest. She went home from work and died at home.

[ChadTower]

If there is any perceived risk, they're supposed to have an EMT on the premesis.  Just in case.  And I mean even low risk, as in a hot dog eating contest, in case of a heart attack or something.  I guess the station was dumb enough to think that there was zero risk associated with drinking water.

Any EMT could have told them how bad an idea that was and most people could have. 

[Samstag]

Only read the article linked on IGN, but it sounds like this happened after she left the contest. She went home from work and died at home.

It did happen after she left, but the important thing is that even a quick consultation with a doctor before running the contest would have prevented the death.  They would have either run the contest in a safe manner or canned the idea altogether.

[ChadTower]

Well, clearly enough people didn't know, that this happened.  Everyone involved at the station all of the participants, and apparently the majority of listeners did not know seeing as how no one called in to say "don't do that, morons".

That is a very high percentage of a large group of people.

[leapinlew]

Well, clearly enough people didn't know, that this happened.  Everyone involved at the station all of the participants, and apparently the majority of listeners did not know

I wouldn't claim to know either.

On one hand, I can't understand how they can do anything without consulting a lawyer. I can't make an edit on our corporate site without getting some lawyers initials.

On the other hand, I can see them bypassing the lawyer because of how long it takes for them to give their ok.

[ChadTower]

And because they are generally stupid and very low salaried workers at a radio station.

[Spaz Monkey]

The morning show DJ's have been fired along with 7 other employees, and what my wife tells me, 3 nurses called and said that the contest was dangerous.

[shmokes]

http://wii.ign.com/articles/755/755951p1.html

Yeah, check this out.  That's messed up.  One of the DJs apparently joked on-air about someone dying from drinking too much water.  A woman called in warning them about water intoxication and they brushed it off saying, "yeah, we know" and saying that all the contestants signed waivers so they aren't responsible.  Also, the lady who died complained about her head hurting while she was taking part in the contest and they told her that was the water, that it would tell her head to hurt and then it would tell her to puke.

I'm pretty sure that this radio station is about to be bankrupted.

[ChadTower]

Depends on those waivers, I'd guess.  I would think that the FCC will have some nice hefty fines and things to say about their license, that's for sure, but how much that woman's family can sue is really going to depend on how strong that waiver she signed turns out to be.  For certain, though, that family is going to end up with a strong lawyer, if for nothing else other than the publicity the case will receive.

[shmokes]

Nope.  Contracts like that are unenforceable.  She couldn't sue just for puking and having an unpleasant time, but you actually can't legally sign your life away like that.  They are 100% liable.

[Pekay]

Wii is £130, geez. Why not just get a job for a month? -.-

[ChadTower]

Nope.  Contracts like that are unenforceable.  She couldn't sue just for puking and having an unpleasant time, but you actually can't legally sign your life away like that.  They are 100% liable.

That's up to a judge's discretion.  It could just as easily be argued that as a competent adult she should have had as much knowledge of the dangers as they did, especially if she was able to listen to the multiple phone calls that said "I'm a nurse, don't do this, it is dangerous".  They didn't force her to do what she did in any way.  She volunteered for the contest and could have walked out at any moment.

Odds are high, though, that none of those questions will ever even be asked.  It will be settled out of court, as these things almost always are.

[tetsu96]

This is from the Sacramento Bee:

Sheriff's spokesman Sgt. Tim Curran said there was public outcry over the department's initial decision not to investigate Strange's death.

But, he said, the pressure did not spur the sheriff to seek charges. Instead, the audio recording changed the landscape.

Discussion during the Friday morning show indicates that disc jockeys were aware of the dangers of water intoxication.

"Can't you get water poisoning and, like, die?" a female disc jockey asked 16 minutes into the show.

Later in the broadcast, Judith Linder, a nurse practitioner, and co-worker Eva Brooks called KDND warning of the dangers of the contest. Disc jockeys rebuffed Brooks, saying the contestants would throw up before they die.

However, it is unclear how much of the talk of water-drinking danger reached the ears of the contest participants.

McGinness said the contestant's knowledge of her own risk -- as well as the radio staff's intent and mindset -- will be taken into account in the probe.

"Was this simply a sophomoric prank that went too far and should be resolved in the civil arena?" he asked.

McGinness also said detectives will be asking for the waiver that contestants signed.

Several competitors interviewed by The Bee said they did not read it, but contestant Gina Sherrod said she did. It dealt solely with publicity, not health and safety, she said.

So there you go - the people who participated in the contest quite likely didn't get a real warning other than a concerned person or 2 calling into the show which they may not have heard as participants.  And if it's true that the waver only dealt with publicity instead of health and safety, that to me screams the DJs and radio station are in a position of neglegence at best.

I'm sure there was no real intent to kill anyone, but there wasn't intent in that incident with a frat where a frat pledge died from water intoxication recently.  People served real time for that because they, regardless of intent, were responsible for that boys death.

I'm undecided on if the jockeys really deserve to go to jail (though statute says probably), but the station should absolutely be held liable as they enabled this bad idea.

More can be found (including audio from the show) here:
http://www.sacbee.com/

[ChadTower]

Yeah, now that I think about it, it's very likely that they only waived claim to compensation for their sound and image during the contest so the radio station could reuse it in the future.  That's very standard for radio.  If they didn't have an EMT on hand then they clearly weren't thinking about liability or physical danger.  I've lost count of the amount of times I've had to hire an EMT to be present for semipro football games and it's not hard to get one.

[shmokes]

Negligence is against the law.  You cannot, even with a contract, exempt yourself from following the law.  Just as I couldn't escape liability for murdering you just because you signed a contract saying that you agree to be murdered by me.  I suppose that it is technically up to the judge, but the law and precedent are clear.  Contracts like that are simply unenforceable.

[Naru]

Seen one of the other contestants on Larry King last night.
She and the other contestants were not privy to the
telephone call warnings. The DJ's were in a separate booth.
There were no medical people at the contest.
The phone call warnings were taped and those DJ's made
a joke of the whole thing.
It reminded me of a group of 12 year olds.

[ChadTower]

Negligence is against the law.  You cannot, even with a contract, exempt yourself from following the law.  Just as I couldn't escape liability for murdering you just because you signed a contract saying that you agree to be murdered by me.  I suppose that it is technically up to the judge, but the law and precedent are clear.  Contracts like that are simply unenforceable.

"drink water and don't pee"   !=  "I'm going to stab you in the chest"

She could have walked to the bathroom at any moment.  She would not have been able to remove a knife.  The analogy doesn't even hold up this scrutiny nevermind what would be thrown at it in litigation.

The contract doesn't matter in this case anymore anyway since it has been established that it was an image waiver, not a liability waiver.

[danny_galaga]

Negligence is against the law.  You cannot, even with a contract, exempt yourself from following the law.  Just as I couldn't escape liability for murdering you just because you signed a contract saying that you agree to be murdered by me.  I suppose that it is technically up to the judge, but the law and precedent are clear.  Contracts like that are simply unenforceable.

"drink water and don't pee"   !=  "I'm going to stab you in the chest"

She could have walked to the bathroom at any moment.  She would not have been able to remove a knife.  The analogy doesn't even hold up this scrutiny nevermind what would be thrown at it in litigation.

The contract doesn't matter in this case anymore anyway since it has been established that it was an image waiver, not a liability waiver.

well, if what schmokes said is right and the woman complained that her head hurt and the organisers told her there was nothing to worry about they are still liable in my opinion...

[shmokes]

Chad, you get so ridiculous anytime someone makes an analogy.  Every analogy is apples and oranges to you unless the two things are exactly the same, in which case it wouldn't be an analogy any more, of course.  The point of an analogy is to use an example that is easier to understand, something that more clearly demonstrates the concept that you are trying to convey.  The analog is often going to be a more extreme case for exactly this reason.  An analogy is useless if it is no more clear than the original example.  Criminal negligence is exactly the same as against the law as murder.  Any contract allowing for illegal activity is unenforceable, whether the illegal activity in question is murder or jay walking.

And by the way, the way that you nitpick analogies doesn't make a convincing case that you don't understand the point of the analogy, it just makes you seem compulsively and deliberately irritating.

[ChadTower]

I would think a law student would understand that you cannot compare first degree murder and involuntary manslaughter.  The laws, the intent, everything that goes into determining fault and/or culpability are completely different.  It is apples and oranges, both morally and legally. 

The reason I throw out your analogies is that you tend to compare a middle of the road item to the most extreme example you can find.  It just doesn't work if you want to have a useful discussion that is based on reasonable analyzation of the facts involved.  There isn't even a need for an analogy here unless you think you're teaching us rather than discussing the topic with us.  If that's the case you may want to reconsider that viewpoint.

[versapak]

I guess a more appropriate analogy involving a knife would be...

The radio station holds a competition where participants are to have knives thrown at them. The person that has the knife thrown closest to them wins. Instead of doing a little research and hiring a trained professional, they just have some average schmuck, who's never even held a knife, do the throwing.

This radio station negligently put its participants in harms way in the first place by not doing the proper research, so as to take the proper precautions, but then made it even worse by laughing off warnings of the contests lethality after being warned on air by people in the medical profession.

[ChadTower]

That is definitely closer as that would probably be voluntary manslaughter.  Accidental death caused by gross negligence.  Intent is debatable but the negligence is so gross that it probably wouldn't matter.

[shmokes]

Chad,

As I already mentioned (and is obvious anyway), the analogy wasn't equating negligence with homicide.  It was illustrating an obvious example of contracts involving illegal activity being automatically null and void, and unenforceable in a court of law.  I used murder, because it is so obvious to anybody why such a contract would be unenforceable.  It helps people understand the concept.  Then they can apply that same concept to less obvious/extreme circumstances, such as criminal negligence.  It is clear to anyone, including yourself, that I am not saying that criminal negligence is the equivalent of murder, or carries the same punishment, etc.  It is clear to anyone, including yourself, that I am simply saying that contracts apparently allowing illegal activity to take place are unenforceable.  This applies to all illegal activity, murder, criminal negligence, jay-walking, etc.  I simply do not have the authority to give someone else leave to engage in criminal activity of any kind - negligence or murder.

The purpose of analogies, Chad, is to help people understand a concept.  If the analogues are exactly the same in every way, the analogy will be exactly as difficult to understand as the original example.  Any normal person would read the murder thing and say, "Oh, yeah.  Of course.  It makes perfect sense that that would not fly in a court of law, for obvious reasons."  It would then be easy for them to take the concept that they now have a clear understanding of, and apply it to the original example of negligence.

[AtomSmasher]

UPDATE

Looks like the family is going to try and sue everyone, including Nintendo if they can.

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/01/22/nintendo-might-be-named-in-wii-wrongful-death-lawsuit/

[SNAAKE]

sue nintendo for what ?? because the wii is fun ??

 

[shmokes]

UPDATE

Looks like the family is going to try and sue everyone, including Nintendo if they can.

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/01/22/nintendo-might-be-named-in-wii-wrongful-death-lawsuit/

This kind of thing bugs me.  What is so hard about presenting information accurately? 

From the article:

"Nintendo "might" be named in the lawsuit if the video game giant participated in the contest, which encouraged hopefuls to hold their wee for a Wii"

[AtomSmasher]

UPDATE

Looks like the family is going to try and sue everyone, including Nintendo if they can.

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/01/22/nintendo-might-be-named-in-wii-wrongful-death-lawsuit/

This kind of thing bugs me.  What is so hard about presenting information accurately? 

From the article:

"Nintendo "might" be named in the lawsuit if the video game giant participated in the contest, which encouraged hopefuls to hold their wee for a Wii"

How did I not present the information accurately?  I said "going to try" and "if they can" which seems to convey the same kind of uncertainty that your quote stated.  Hell, the name of the article is "Nintendo might be named in wrongful death lawsuit"   Sheesh.

edit*typo

[versapak]

UPDATE

Looks like the family is going to try and sue everyone, including Nintendo if they can.

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/01/22/nintendo-might-be-named-in-wii-wrongful-death-lawsuit/

This kind of thing bugs me.  What is so hard about presenting information accurately? 

From the article:

"Nintendo "might" be named in the lawsuit if the video game giant participated in the contest, which encouraged hopefuls to hold their wee for a Wii"

How did I not present the information accurately?  I said "going to try" and "if they can" which seems to convey the same kind of uncertainty that your quote stated.  Hell, the name of the article is "Nintendo might be named in wrongful death lawsuit"   Sheesh.

edit*typo

Because your statement was "if they can", implying that they are going to just try and sue anyone and everyone.

The reality though, is that it is not a matter of "if they can" sue, but rather a matter of determining if Nintendo was at all involved in the contest (which I am most certain they were not).

[AtomSmasher]

Because your statement was "if they can", implying that they are going to just try and sue anyone and everyone.

The reality though, is that it is not a matter of "if they can" sue, but rather a matter of determining if Nintendo was at all involved in the contest (which I am most certain they were not).

Ok, I can see how what I wrote was taken that way and I did word it poorly.  By "if they can" in my mind I was saying they would only be able to sue them if Nintendo was somehow involved and liable, but I can see I left it a little too open.

[ChadTower]

They can sue Nintendo whether they were involved or not.  The question is can they win, not can they sue.

[shmokes]

Because it was presented in a way that made the family of Mrs. Strange seem like unethical people who are just out to scam a buck off of whomever they can, regardless of culpability.  The article you referenced never once suggests any such thing and is not written with the same pejorative tone.  I jumped on you because this poor family just lost their mother so that some disgusting and irresponsible people could get a laugh at her expense.  The people responsible should be, well, held responsible.  But I see people all over the web saying things like, "Not only does the radio station owe them nothing, but those people shouldn't even be fired.  She was an adult and ought to be held responsible for her own actions.  Nobody forced the water down her throat."

Maybe you aren't one of those people, but the abundance of them and the wording of your post made it sound like you are one of them.

And so on . . .