Kotaku 
Enter your username and password.
Denver, 2:47 AM
Thu Nov 12
65 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip us: tips@kotaku.com
Editor-In-Chief:
Brian Crecente
Email | AIM | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Stephen Totilo
Email | AIM | Twitter
Senior Editor:
Michael McWhertor
Email | AIM | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor, Japan:
Brian Ashcraft
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, East Coast:
Michael Fahey
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Oceania:
Luke Plunkett
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Weekends:
Owen Good
Email | AIM | Twitter
Correspondent, San Francisco:
AJ Glasser
Email | AIM | Twitter
Columnist:
Leigh Alexander
Columnist:
Tim Rogers
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/31/09
1. Ignorance x Too much love for her kids
2. How much is too much when it comes to being partly responsible for someone's death
3. Why do people have to take such extreme stands when it comes to commenting on blogs
Too all those calling the woman stupid, completely responsible for what has happened to her, and stuff like that: You can get down your high horses now and just think a bit on how many dangerous stuff you got into because someone told you it was "safe". If you ever been in an amusement park, that's it.
And yet, if you died during a rollercoaster ride for any reason whatsoever, no one would call you stupid... it'd be the amusement park's responsibility.
I mean, has anyone ever heard of someone dying from drinking too much water before this case?
If you all know so much about warning signs and whatsoever, why don't you tell us what they are? It could be something sudden you can't control. Suddenly, there are lots of doctors and people with first hand experience in the house it seems.
You know. "I'd never do that because I'm so fucking smart".
Jennifer there was just trying to get her sons a Wii. She probably didn't have much money, so she had to take chances on the radio contest.
Probably not being as fortunate as most of us here, who has a decent internet connection and money to buy a Wii without taking risks, this was one good chance.
She probably got someone telling her she wouldn't have problems drinking that ammount of water because, you know, it's just water.
About the value. It's not about how much that sum means to us, it's how much the judges felt adequate to the case. It doesn't matter if it's 5 bucks or 50 million usds, as long as it's meaningful to the case and high enough to punish the station and for other people never to try doing a constest that stupid again. #lawsuit
10/30/09
the american court system is a joke #lawsuit
10/30/09
10/30/09
1. Adult woman voluntarily engages in an act that is well known to be potentially fatal for a chance to earn a $200 prize.
2. Woman is warned repeatedly that this is probably stupid.
3. Woman dies of self inflicted hyponatremia.
4. This somehow entitles her to $16 million dollars.
WRONG!
There is a strange trend in this country for placing monetary value on idiocy. #lawsuit
10/30/09
10/30/09
It boiled down to the station being liable in a negligent/wrongful death worst case scenario that this contest resulted in.
The whole thing was stupid and what basis is there for common sense to tell you that you can die from excessive hydration? I've never drank too much ater and I didn't even know you could until now.
They are totally at fault for this, the lady is dead and her kids have to grow up without their mother $16M should be enough to fill the gap in income but family members can't be replaced. #lawsuit
10/30/09
10/30/09
But...
"During the trial a tape of the program revealed that an on-air host had mentioned the potential fatal effects of drinking too much water - citing a 2005 fraternity hazing death. A listener also called to advise they not try the stunt."
It says right there that she was warned.
When it comes down to it, I wouldn't deny the family that money. It's just odd how different amounts are justified. How does her family deserve any more money than the family of a person who dies... say running a marathon? I guess the only difference being that the groups that hold marathons are smart enough to make their participants sign liability wavers. #lawsuit
10/30/09
10/30/09
10/30/09
"No, no that kid drank like 2 gallons of water."
Then they all share a laugh.
A few minutes later you can hear the woman saying, "Oh my stomach, I look like I'm pregnant again!"
Another laugh all around.
It's a very disturbing listen and the fact that this stunt was deadly was pretty openly discussed.
(Although, if the woman was unaware of the 2005 incident, she could have just taken these statements to be an attempt at getting her to drop out early.
After all, "these guys are professionals, they'd never let us do something dangerous".) #lawsuit
10/30/09
Also if it she heard about the potential side effects, that would also be Assumption of the Risk. #lawsuit
10/30/09
This means that, and this is only if this was how the ruling played out, both parties will assume comparative liability in the case- with the defendant having to pay the sum equal to the percentage the party is liable. Judging from the defendant's statements following the verdict:
"Charles Sipkins, a spokesman for Entercom, said in a statement: "Jennifer Strange’s death was a tragedy. Our hearts go out to all of her loved ones, including, in particular, her husband and children. While legal restrictions preclude us from commenting further on the verdict, we respect the jury’s decision and hope that it will assist the Strange family in coping with its loss.""
I don't see how you reached your conclusion: "that's your own dumbass fault it happened
Man, all of the armchair lawyers are really coming out of the wood-works tonight huh? Don't try to sound so pretentious next time, or if you do, at the very least please try to back it up with something substantial. Throwing around legalese doesn't make your arguments or you any more credible. #lawsuit
10/30/09
Secondly, the term I'm using is contributory negligence... well at least that's the term taught to my class, by our tort professor who happens to be a veteran litigator here in Southern Ca. So no, I'm NOT looking for non-absolute comparative negligence. Though out of curiosity, I've gone to both CBE and ABA law schools and not once heard it refereed to that, do you practice outside of Ca?
And no I did not want to use comparative negligence as, contributory is a total bar to recovery and in this case, I don't think they should have recovered. Yes it's cold and yeah people think I'm a dick for it. Especially if she was warned of the risks before hand. If she was warned is she not assuming the risk of drinking all that water? If she was warned would she not understand the risks involved? And did she not choose to encounter the risk regardless? Therefore is not Assumption of the Risk an applicable defense here?
Here tell you what, give me all the facts and I'll give you a full analysis. If YOU are a lawyer, you can score as if it was a bar question and tell this "air chair lawyer" what I still need to work on, before I take the bar in about a year. Actually no, don't bother unless you practice in Ca, since Ca has the hardest Bar Exam in the country, I only want a Ca lawyer giving me advice on it.
10/29/09
Most people don't seem to understand that intelligence and education are not the same thing. Water poisoining is not as well known as it should be. She is not stupid, she was uninformed. I dare to ask people around you if they know you can die from drinking too much water. You might be surprised by how little it is known. In fact, I only found out myself in a university class in physiology.
10/29/09
10/29/09
If you don't understand how the court system works, don't try to criticize it. #lawsuit
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/30/09
10/29/09
No one forced her to take part in the contest and no one forced her to drink herself to death. She did that all on her own accord. So this decision is disagreeable to say the least. #lawsuit
10/29/09
The DJs do, without a doubt, hold fault in this case. Placing all the blame on her is absolute bullshit. #lawsuit
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/29/09
You can get sued if someone slips on a sidewalk that you shoveled. You can get sued for someone else spilling coffee you sold them on themselves (I don't care if it was too hot, she spilled it on herself.)
She drank the water herself. No one put a gun to her head. If she's so fucking stupid to hold her bladder so long without peeing for a $250 Wii then maybe she deserves to die. Cleaning the gene pool imo.
10/29/09
[www.lectlaw.com]
Even I was surprised that someone could die from drinking too much water, so I think its a bit unreasonable to put all the blame on the woman for not knowing that drinking too much water is dangerous. After this incident there should be plenty more people aware of the dangers of drinking too much water, so that extra $15million *should* be doing its job.
There are some frivolous lawsuits out there that make me think "WTF", but this too much water lawsuit and that spilled hot coffee suit aren't among them. #lawsuit
10/29/09
It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world mate. Every ones a piece of shit. #lawsuit
10/29/09
10/29/09
If I decided to join an eating contest, I would do so with the expectation that I could potentially become sick and die from putting that much food in my mouth.
Ignorance is not an excuse. #lawsuit
10/29/09
10/29/09
Otherwise, you're just speaking out of your ass. #lawsuit
10/29/09
Basically, in 80 minutes, these participants would have received their recommended daily amount. Heck, there were many that even stopped at eight glasses or less simply because they couldn't ingest anymore before throwing up. Mind you, Strange received second, and so what was the case for the person who received first? Was it high sodium levels that saved them?
10/29/09
For a fuller understanding of the case, in addition to the suggested link, I would suggest you check your school database or online law databases for:
Michael McCann, William Haltom, and Anne Bloom, "LAW & SOCIETY SYMPOSIUM: Java Jive: Genealogy of a Juridical Icon," 56 U. Miami L. Rev. 113 (October 2001)
The best summary of the case I have ever read, making for a strong, objective, analytical approach to the case as well as its wider implications. I have a copy with me here, but unless you want me to send it to your email or the like, I would suggest you search for it yourself. #lawsuit
10/29/09
I am a medical student so I will use a medical analogy which goes along with the theme of this news story. Consent forms are commonplace for surgeries. Now a doctor is ethically and legally bound to get consent from a patient who is having surgery by telling them the risks of surgery (typically include bleeding, infection, death) and possible alternative treatment including doing nothing. This is particularly important in high-risk and experimental surgeries. Now under your reasoning if the doctor never obtained consent for a high risk surgery he should not be held liable if that patient then dies because the patient should have had the "expectation" that he or she was going to die. Pretty ridiculous huh? Of course the doctor is liable. Nobody told Jennifer Strange that she could have died. And why would any business hold an event where death is a likely outcome? They were begging to be sued by holding this event. #lawsuit
10/29/09
Not to mention that your example is kinda "out there." A surgeon cannot normally perform a surgery without informed consent, so if he/she tries to, he is automatically in the wrong, except in critical/trauma cases where consent cannot be obtained. Even then, a surgeon may be liable in the case of injury or death if the injury or death were caused by negligence on the part of the doctor or surgeon.
But the problem with your example here with the surgeon is that with any surgical (not to mention many medical) procedures, there is also the reasonable expectation of complications, injury, or death, regardless of whether or not a doctor or surgeon performs flawlessly. A radio show doesn't necessarily share those reasonable expectations, even if the DJs happened to know some of the potential consequences, which is why negligence should be shared in this case, with the radio station holding most of the negligence. #lawsuit
10/30/09
10/30/09
10/30/09
Hell, you could watch People's Court to know that ignorance in any instance doesn't remove all liability from a litigant or defense. #lawsuit
10/30/09
Now, can you blame Strange for being a woman? Well, if only she were a male then she wouldn't have died! She wasn't stupid, the very contest was and it's a damn shame she didn't receive any coherent answers when she asked the DJs why she was in pain. "Oh what, did the Intern tell you that?"
10/30/09
10/30/09
10/30/09
Yeah, I didn't say that right. What I meant was shared negligence, with the DJs/radio station owning the majority of the negligence.
To my knowledge Jennifer Strange was never told you could die from drinking too much water by anyone who organized the event.
I understand that she was not notified of some of the specific risks. But she and the other contestants did have to sign waivers, and while we don't know how those were worded, the typical waiver generally statements pertaining to the dangers of participation, and that the individual assumes responsibility for the act that they are about to undertake.
I'm not saying that such waivers completely exonerates the radio station, but had the waiver contained information specifically regarding water poisoning, or bladder damage, etc., we'd probably still have seen this kind of lawsuit, which is a problem. Going back to my skydiving example, a skydiving waiver doesn't cover every last possibility, but typically the major ones. That doesn't mean that if you jump from a plane only to be cut up in the rotors of a chopper, or struck dead by a flying seagull, that they skydiving company would automatically be liable.
And that's where I have a problem with this case. I think the common individual knows, or at least should know, that shoving too much of any substance into your body is a dangerous undertaking, akin to skydiving or playing a contact sport. And these individuals entered the competition knowing that they were participating in something outside the realm of the typical daily functions of the body, else we'd see people drinking 8 full glasses of water in one sitting more frequently.
10/30/09
10/30/09
10/30/09
"As far as what saved the winner, it most likely comes down to body mass and weight. From what I have read this was a very small, light weight lady. That probably made the difference between life and death."
Also, if you couldn't tell my comment, "Well, if only she were a male then she wouldn't have died!", was sarcasm then I apologize. However, you're bringing up the fact that she was a woman, that her gender contributed to her death. Maybe you're wording it wrong, but that's how it comes about since the average female, when compared to the average male, is smaller in height and weight.
EDIT: If you're going to respond to this comment, would you please provide the sources that would imply that she was very light weight and small? From last night, all I found about her profile was that she was 28 years-old and a mother of three, nothing else.
10/30/09
10/30/09
Fearless willpower perhaps?
10/29/09
Sure, I feel sad for her. Afterall, she was doing it for her kids. But it's simple common sense that you shouldn't force your body to do anything THAT extreme (drink til you burst to win a video game console or inhale smoke til you choke to win a new bike)
If a person died from eating a 72oz steak for the sake of getting the free steak and getting his picture in a local restaurant, can you still sue to get the same amount of money?
People do stupid stunts all the time, I don't see why this stunt is worth 16 million dollars when there are millions of homeless on the street. #lawsuit
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/29/09
Do we really need to be told things that our body has built in functions for exactly that purpose? To warn of danger, pain, discomfort?
If you hold your hand over a flame and it's burning your skin, do you need to be told to move your hand out of the fire?
American society is so litigious it's unbelievable.
10/29/09
"During the contest, participants were given two minutes to drink an 8-ounce bottle of water and then given another bottle to drink after a 10-minute break." [articles.latimes.com]
Oh man, that sounds so dangerous to the common man. An 8 ounce bottle, damn I don't even know if I could drink that much, right? #lawsuit
10/29/09
You are completely intent on putting the blame on anybody except the woman who held the water up to her mouth and chugged it. She did it. She could stop any time she wanted to. She was STUPID. DUMB. For what, a $250 Wii. STUPID STUPID STUPID. #lawsuit
10/29/09
Its such common knowledge that drinking too much water is dangerous that a radio show decided it would be okay to have a contest where you drink as much water as you can....
Its not common knowledge, but that extra $15million in the settlement will help to make it common knowledge. #lawsuit
10/29/09
You know, you've probably done something stupid in your life, don't lie. What if, in the future, one of your actions cause your death. Will I have the blessing to call you stupid and converse with others of how good it is to be weeding out the gene pool?
Thankfully, I wouldn't be such a pompous jackass, but irony does taste all too sweet.
Oh, and STUPIDx∞. There, I've validated my argument.
10/29/09
10/29/09
Also, it's static electricity that causes those gas station explosions. Cell phones are just one of the possible components to such events. #lawsuit
10/29/09
Anyway, we are not talking about the medical consequences here.
The question at hand is the "worth" of the liability. Yes, the radio DJs should be held accountable because they did not warn (as I just found out) about the danger behind the contest. However, how much compensation is "too much"?
Sure, you might be a med student but you still have to know about these legal issues by now. Jesus, where do you go for med school?
PS: this is why I dislike most med students (just the students). They are so eager to show off their "advanced" medical knowledge whenever is possible. "James Dean died in a motor accident. It was a shame. He died too young" "Oh, he probably suffered _____ leading to ______ then ________" (boring!) #lawsuit
10/29/09
10/30/09
Now stop taking my comments to others retarded statements out of context.
"Obviously, you cannot expect everyone to know about the possibility of cerebral edema via water drinking." That was exactly my point you retard. I said the contestants did not know of the dangers and I did not think that they would. I already wrote I had not heard of water intoxication until I took physiology classes as an undergrad. But like you said the DJs did know and should be held liable. I said this because people were saying they should not be held liable. I AGREE WITH YOU so what the fuck are you talking about. I was using medical knowledge to dispel the misconceptions that the common person should know the symptoms of water intoxication. I am on your side on this point and I don't know why you are getting your panties in a twist.
"However, how much compensation is "too much"?" "Sure, you might be a med student but you still have to know about these legal issues by now. Jesus, where do you go for med school?" I have answered that in a different thread and this is where I might disagree with you. I know that the family was awarded 1 million in pain and suffering but another 15 million in punitive damages. Both my brothers are lawyers so I know a little bit about the law but I do not claim to be an expert. You might object to the concept of punitive damages but I do not. #lawsuit
10/29/09
Getting their show replaced by a Christmas lineup. [www.endonline.com]
But as much as I hate to say it, it was as much of the woman's fault as it was the DJs, because she took the risk of destroying her bladder just in order to win a simple Wii console. Is it really worth the risk to your own health just to win a simple electronic device?
But I digress. I pray good help and health to the family, and that better times for them shall come ahead. #lawsuit
10/29/09
I'd forgotten this story, and how unhappy its ending was. #lawsuit
10/29/09
Skip to 0:37 (sorry, couldn't find cropped clip) #lawsuit
10/29/09
10/29/09
The response, "Yeah we're aware of that. They signed releases so we're not responsible okay?" #lawsuit
10/29/09
I feel sorry for her, but still very stupid.
Oh well, at least they racked up 16mil. #lawsuit
10/29/09
10/29/09
I'll simply say this, that when Strange called in and talked about her head hurting, the DJs also had responsibility to stop her, not possibly get her to compensate for another reward.
10/29/09