Several interesting questions to reflect about on this case.
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
only in america..... in every other country in the world it would have been "if you're stupid enough to do this, then live (or die, in this case) with your consequences.
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
@SplotchEleven: Except hyponatremia is not well-known (only one case from 2005, remember) and most importantly Strange was not warned; it was the DJs who were warned of how stupid their contest was and the hazards involved. Did the DJs bother telling all their participants? No, and in fact encouraged Strange to continue or to dropout for tickets, not for her health. #lawsuit
@Atomsk88: Not only that the money isn't going to her it's going to her family, remember she is survived by 3 kids. The fact that the radio station pulled this stupid stunt and didn't have EMT's on hand or a waver(you know the thing you sign when you go skydiving or bungie jump?).
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
@Atomsk88: Ok that's an argument I can get behind. If the DJs knew the dangers and didn't inform the participants then that definitely shifts the blame in their corner. #lawsuit
@Tyr4nt: I'm a medic and EMT qualified... I forget sometimes that these things aren't common knowledge.
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
@SplotchEleven: ...I hate to be a dick, but can you point out to me specifically where in the statement that you have quoted, that says that she was warned?
@NeVeRMoRe666: it says in the quote that the DJ said a kid had died in a hazing incident involving the same activity they were about to undertake. I would consider myself warned. #lawsuit
@NeVeRMoRe666: Sorry dude, but I heard the radio broadcast and one of the DJs say something like, "I hope this doesn't turn out like that college kid that died."
"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
@Bricked: First, no one asked you. And second, without having access to any of the documents, you really have no basis to make your claim. Third, in this case, and judging from the ruling, I think the term you are looking for is non-absolute contributory negligence or comparative negligence.
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
@NeVeRMoRe666: First off. I don't NEED to be asked before I say anything, (I sure as hell don't need to be asked by YOU) if I have an opinion I will say it, regardless of being asked. Regardless of what YOU think.
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.
Thank you Atomsk88, you are giving me hope in humankind.
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.
I really don't see how they deserve 16 million dollars. This women DEFINATELY would not have made that much money in her life time,so technically 16 million dollars was not the fair amount. Working a 40,000 dollar a year job..in 100 years she'd only be at 4 million. I really don't see where the courts do their math...system is flawed in many ways but they ALWAYS give waaaay too much money on cases that get media attention #lawsuit
While it's sad that this woman died, not only did her family not deserve $16 million dollars, but her death is no one's fault but her own.
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
@NeoAkira: Because death was in the mind of all the participants during the contest, right? At most, the worse case scenario in their minds was likely pissing their pants, not actually dying.
The DJs do, without a doubt, hold fault in this case. Placing all the blame on her is absolute bullshit.#lawsuit
@NeoAkira: The Wii at the time was very hard to get. That contributed to winning such a contest to give as a gift to her kids that much greater. It was a dumb contest. Radio jocks do idiotic things like this all the time to up their ratings. I'm glad they were held accountable for promoting dumb ideas on public air waves. I don't see it any different from a type of fraternity hazing. #lawsuit
@Atomsk88: she agreed to do it, and as stated it was mentioned several times, the fatal consequences. Only a moron wouldn't realize putting large amounts of anything in their body is not a smart thing to do for various reasons. #lawsuit
@NeoAkira: Completely disagree. She was not warned of the health dangers. The organizers did nothing to help her when she complained her head hurt. She was awarded 1 million dollars, 15 million which were punitive damages. The purpose of punitive damages are to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit. And if it makes execs at radio stations or fraternity hazers think twice before doing something stupid, all the better. #lawsuit
@NeoAkira: Agree. A lot of Americans have a fucked up sense of entitlement and blame. There's seriously a huge lack of personal accountability.
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.
@Adhominem: Read this and say that hot coffee incident was the fault of the user rather then McDonalds: [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
@Atomsk88: They signed releases, its sad but they are not held responsible. :(
It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world mate. Every ones a piece of shit. #lawsuit
@Treponema_Pallidum: I think that there is also a point at which responsibility is shifts to the participant, or is at least shared by both parties.
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.
@Atomsk88: Umm maybe they should have been thinking about death. If you're dumb enough not to know that too much of anything INCLUDING WATER can be fatal you need to take some more school. #lawsuit
@NeoAkira: I'm sorry, but do you have children? Are you a parent who wants to make Christmas a little bit extra special for the people you love in your life?
Otherwise, you're just speaking out of your ass. #lawsuit
@Revolution_is_coming: The recommended amount of water per day is 64 oz, that's what they teach in school. It's always "drink enough water and stay hydrated throughout the day." Dehydration is actually common sense, not water intoxication. It is rarely ever discussed of how drinking too much water lowers your sodium levels and leads to hyponatremia.
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?
@qamulek: @Adhominem: Thank you for posting that link. The thing that infuriates me more than anything is people who "think" they know lawsuits, but can't be bothered to even know the name of the people involved. No case is as black and white or as simple as you, adhominem believe it to be. As qamulek said, the hot coffee case is NOT and was NOT a frivolous lawsuit. I've explained it in sufficient details in the past, but I don't have time for a lecture tonight. All I can say is, you really have to watch what you read as well as the news that you take in. A lot of the so-called "facts" that surround the case have been propagated and in some instances, manufactured by tort-reformist, or more often than not, multi-billion dollar companies who have their profits at stake.
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
@illiniphase4: Sure ignorance is an excuse. I think you are mistaking the legal concept "Ignorantia juris non excusat" which means that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content. This applies to people who break the law and even then there are exceptions to this principle.
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
@Treponema_Pallidum: I'm not exactly sure where you got that from... I don't think I said anything remotely close to absence of consent removing liability. In fact, I've been fairly consistent in stating that even with consent, an individual can still sue.
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
@Atomsk88: There is a huge difference in 64 oz. in 24 hours and 64oz. in less than two. 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. #lawsuit
@Treponema_Pallidum: And you are still wrong in stating that ignorance is an acceptable excuse. Take, for instance, an individual that doesn't properly feed a child because he/she honestly doesn't know any better. Such ignorance will still be found to be neglect. Similarly, when individuals sign consent waivers to play sports, they may be ignorant to all of the possible injuries they may sustain, and may be ignorant to ways of preventing such injuries. But that doesn't mean that if they are injured on the field of play in a legal play that they can go after the athlete that injures them. In any situation of extremity there is a reasonable expectation that harm could occur. Another great example is sky diving. A person packs his/her own shoot, so, as long as their plane doesn't go down, they consent to owness of the situation.
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
@Revolution_is_coming: There is, but is it ever specified to students the amount per period of consumption? It's simply get that amount into your body that's taught, not the actual maintenance of water. Heck, not too many people realize you're suppose to drink a satisfying amount of water while traveling in intense heat, not to conserve your water amount the entire trip.
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?"
@illiniphase4: I apologize. When I thought you said shared liability I thought you meant between Jennifer Strange and the DJ's/radio station and that was what my analogy was directed at. I did not know you meant between the DJs and the radio station. And your right that consent does not have to obtained in trauma cases where consent cannot be obtained. That was not really what I was getting at. I was using a specific example of a doctor who failed to obtain proper consent from a "normal" competent patient (not trauma/psych patients), would and should be held liable for a patient's death BECAUSE he never stated that death was a possible risk. This is the essence of informed consent and why doctors are meticulous about obtaining it. #lawsuit
@illiniphase4: Those are all great examples and I agree with all of them. Now let me get to my point. If the skydiving company never obtained a release of liability (waiver, etc) from the skydiver the family could easily sue the skydiving company. That is why you have to fill out all that paperwork before you skydive. To my knowledge Jennifer Strange was never told you could die from drinking too much water by anyone who organized the event. It was not reasonable to expect that should have known. None of the jurors in the case knew it. #lawsuit
@Treponema_Pallidum: When I thought you said shared liability I thought you meant between Jennifer Strange and the DJ's/radio station
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.
@illiniphase4: I don't think the common individual does know the danger of shoving too much of any substance into your body is a dangerous undertaking, at least when it comes to water. I live in Sacramento and I am not sure if it was broadcast nationally but at least the local news reported a few of the jurors comments and one of them had said that none of the jurors had ever heard of water intoxication or the dangers of drinking too much water. #lawsuit
@Atomsk88: You had my attention until you went into that a rant about her being a woman. WTF does that have to do with anything? No one said anything about her gender. You would make a good Democrat Strategist. #lawsuit
"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.
@Atomsk88: Gender had nothing to do with it. HER BODY WEIGHT did. Just like with alcohol heavier people are able to ingest more than other who are very light weight. As for where I heard about her weight I believe it was on a radio show when the incident first happened. #lawsuit
@Revolution_is_coming: I did find a transcript where one of the DJs said she was "tiny", but then that begs the question, if someone who was tiny (mind you that's a broad definition, meaning either petite, short or skiny) able to place second? There's got to be more to it than body mass. Certainly her body wasn't able to handle the excess water, but she somehow was able to ingest far more to the point she appeared three months pregnant.
16 million dollars rewarded for the family whose mother was lost in a stupid stunt. That's American justice for ya.
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
@ergonomicuser: The contestants were not warned of the dangers and did nothing when she complained of her head hurting. Headaches are often the first symptoms of water intoxication. Left untreated this can and did lead it cerebral edema and ultimately herniation causing death. Yet the organizers did nothing to warn her or get her to a hospital. #lawsuit
@Adhominem: So I guess no one should jog or exercise because of the strain it puts on one's body.
"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
@Atomsk88: Your "counter-example" is stupid and ridiculous because jogging and exercising are not harmful in itself but if you start recognizing signs like, "hey.. i feel nauseous and or dizzy I should stop."
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
@ergonomicuser: "But it's simple common sense that you shouldn't force your body to do anything THAT extreme "
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
@Adhominem: I do put blame on her, but not 100%. I believe however that a vast majority of the blame goes to the DJs and their total disregard to such serious matters.
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.
@Treponema_Pallidum: Syphilis, don't give us that medical crap. The contestants nor the judges had any idea of the severe medical consequences of imbalancing the body's electrolyte. People do stuff that's dangerous in the eyes of medical professionals all the time. Hell, not even medical professionals would know EVERYTHING. My neighbors are a couple of residents and they do not seem to know that you can die from monooxide if you don't vent your dryer...... Obviously, you cannot expect everyone to know about the possibility of cerebral edema via water drinking.
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
@Adhominem: Since you seem to be the expert at the body's built in functions, as you call them, tell me how her "head hurts" translates into her understanding that this pain mean that she is going to die? Your analogy of the withdrawal reflex shows how retarded you are. The withdrawal reflex you describe with the hand over the flame does not even reach the central nervous system. No higher thought process goes into withdrawing your hand from the fire since it never reaches the brain rather it is relayed from receptors in the hand to the spinal cord to alpha motor neurons in your biceps causing them to contract. The intricacies and subtleties of the symptoms of water intoxication is nothing like the simple monosynaptic withdrawal reflex you describe. She was not aware that "my head hurts" means that I have hyponatremia, my brain is swelling (cerebral edema), and my brain is going to herniate throughout the foramen magnum causing my death. I am from Sacramento and just heard in the news report tonight that none of the jurors had ever even heard of water intoxication. Why should Jennifer Strange have known? She was never told by the DJs or other organizers of the event. The DJs were warned by people who called in that this could cause death but never warned Jennifer that she might be dying. The last on air comment from Jennifer Strange was that her head hurt. I don't know if she immediately stopped after her head hurt or not. You are assuming she did. But by the time her head hurt SHE HAD ALREADY DRANK TOO MUCH WATER AND WAS SUFFERING CEREBRAL EDEMA which was causing her head pain. In other words her brain was swelling and swelling and swelling to the point where her head now hurt. If she quit immediately when her head started to hurt, her brain would CONTINUE to swell because shifts in water from the intestines into the blood stream, across the blood-brain barrier, into brain cells DOES NOT START AND STOP instantaneously. These shifts in equilibrium do take a little time to develop. You sound like an idiot who has no idea what he is talking about. The US is a litigious society with many frivolous lawsuits. However, this case was certainly not a frivolous lawsuit. #lawsuit
@ergonomicuser: LMAO. Actually Treponema Pallidum is the spirochetal bacterium that causes syphilis in humans. Syphilis and Treponema Pallidum are not synonyms so calling me syphilis is incorrect. Now if you called me a spirochetal bacterium that would have been more correct. I use that as my handle because I think it is a cool name for a bacterium.
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
Aw Jesus, I remember hearing about this stunt back in 2007 here in the East Bay. I was really saddened to hear the DJs didn't really take any effort to secure safety measures and only passingly mentioned the dangers of the contest. In fact, I'm happy that they were fired as a result for their actions. Now they have to face the ultimate price:
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
This case still saddens me. I don't presume to place blame on anyone specific, but the outcome was truly regrettable. It should have just been a silly radio contest and a mother's good intentions; a footnote in a few lives. Now it's a defining moment for family, friends, and former employees.
I'd forgotten this story, and how unhappy its ending was. #lawsuit
This is all I could find, and so it turns out that the caller who gave a warning called well into the very contest after everyone was drinking massive amounts of water.
The response, "Yeah we're aware of that. They signed releases so we're not responsible okay?" #lawsuit
The fact is, she did something stupid, its as much her fault as it is the radio stations fault and any other person related to the stunt. I mean, if its some young kid ot teen attempting this, thats fine, but a grown parent should know better, why would you destroy your bladder over a $250 Wii? I mean why? The sad thing is, she actually died which seems so messed up.
@Trygle12 is back! Still has trouble reading 70% of posts. ;_;: True, though in perspective, contests tend to put aside common sense when you have a reward as an outcome. It's like you can die from eating McDonalds every day, but when it's Monopoly month, the reward tends to outweigh someone's judgment.
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.
@Xenris: Not many people know the dangers of hyponatremia associated with water intoxication. The contestants were not warned of the dangers. The organizers obviously did and they should be held accountable. #lawsuit
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