Posted on 01/18/2007 10:47:09 AM PST by GoldCountryRedneck
Sacramento County Sheriff John McGinness assigned two homicide detectives Wednesday to investigate the apparent water-intoxication death of a Rancho Cordova woman who competed in a radio-station stunt to win a Nintendo gaming console.
Jennifer Strange (deceased), her husband, and children.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Lawsuits against the station were filed this morning.
Use bugmenot.com for access - it works.
Slam dunk case. Radio station will settle out of court.
In the civil case that is. What about the criminal case that might happen?
Station should have known that hydrogen dioxide is fatal.
It ain't the poison, it's the dosage.
Les Nessman was acquited on a similar charge..
eloborate.
Seems like a good wrongful death case, but I question whether it is a criminal matter. Are they saying that the perps knew she was going to die when they set up the contest? Doesn't seem likely.
I heard audio of the water show this morning on a talk station. A woman caller told DJ's that someone could die from Water Intoxication, their reply was "That's OK, we had them sign waivers".
I can just hear that being played over and over again for the jurors.
What about a charge of reckless endangerment? They sure were laughing it up on the show. Also, from what I heard, a nurse called in and was trying to tell the jocks that people can die from water intoxication.
Seems like a tough case.
From http://cbs13.com/local/local_story_017093935.html
During the contest, a listener - self-identified as a nurse - called the live radio broadcast and warned that the game was dangerous.
"I want to say that those people drinking all that water can get sick and die from water intoxication," said the caller.
"Yeah, we're aware of that," replied a DJ. "They signed releases so we're not responsible, okay?"
THEY ARE SCREWED!
The husband and the kids will own that radio station when it's all over.
As well they should be.
Yeah, if they said that, then maybe it's not so clear. The prosecutor will probably lose in the end, but it would be worth prosecuting them just to make them sweat.
A tragic situation. But, last I heard, pure water was a legal substance. Civil settlement likely to avoid publicity, but what could the criminal charge be?
Depends on how well the "Contestant Release", which each contestant signed, was written.
The station (FM 107.4 out here) is a hip-hop outfit; I was surprised at her age, RN background (if true) she participated.
Also from http://cbs13.com/local/local_story_017093935.html
In February 2005, a Chico State University student died after drinking too much water in a hazing incident at a fraternity. Matthew Carrington was forced to repeatedly drink from a 5-gallon jug and then do calisthenics.
In that case, one fraternity member pleaded guilty to felony involuntary manslaughter and two others pleaded guilty to being accessories to manslaughter, among other charges.
Maybe a similar charge?
In that case, one fraternity member pleaded guilty to felony involuntary manslaughter and two others pleaded guilty to being accessories to manslaughter, among other charges.
That would be HO2 which I don't think is even possible since hydrogen has one binding site and oxygen has two; of course I could be wrong since it's been a while since I sat in a chemistry class and I didn't stay in a Holiday in Express last night.
I'm assuming you mean dihydrogen oxide or technically, dihydrogen monoxide.
What are some of the dangers associated with DHMO?
Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are: Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
* Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
* Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
* DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
* Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
* Contributes to soil erosion.
* Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
* Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
* Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
* Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
* Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.
* Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.
* Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.
I remember the Chico case. Carrington was forced to drink the water and then do calisthenics.
I don't think anyone forced the radio contestants to drink. Several reportedly left early on.
Luckily, it's also chemically impossible
In that case, they forced him though. Maybe could bring charges, but I question whether they'd win. If I tell you to jump out of a tall building, and you do it, have I committed a crime?
Actually I dislike all these How much can you eat/drink contests.
My stepson just won a vindallu curry eating contest.
Heaven knows what that did to his alimentary canal.
I doubt that the contest release would exonerate them. In most states, those releases are held invalid when you are dealing with bodily injury. Sometimes an assumption of risk argument works, but you better have a pretty clear disclosure of what the risk is.
I don't see that much of a difference between the frat and the radio station.
The difference with your question is that almost everyone alive knows that if you jump off a building you will die. I doubt many people know (and the contest kind of proves this) that you can die from drinking too much water.
I think I read that the contest release was more geared toward a publicity release anyway.
Bet the promoters of all those all-you-can-eat contests will be following this one?
I've often wondered after watching that guy down 52 dogs what legalities would reign if in fact something ruptured internally...
True, but it cuts both ways. If she signed a release, then the implication is that she knew it was dangerous. And if she was listening to the station when the nurse called in, she heard what they heard. If she knew everything they knew, but did it anyway, then where does that put them?
She worked at at Radiological office, but not sure if she was an RN.
1. One of the other contestants said that they could not hear the callers from the booth they were in.
2. I believe the release had to do mostly with publicity.
Also, another interesting thing that I heard was that the djs were discussing the Chico case while on the air...It seems that there is a fair amount of ammo that a defense attorney for the djs may have to contend with...we'll see what happens here.
Let's start suing people for being stupid. How come we can't sue lefties, then?
Really? Maybe if ALL the contestants died, sure. Then we can say that such an activity is dangerous. But one person? Out of how many?
Was she the winner? If not, then others drank more than she did! And they didn't die, did they?
How is the radio station supposed to be at fault? Personal responsibility, people.
The interesting thing is that she did stop drinking and still died.
How is the radio station supposed to be at fault? Personal responsibility, people.
And where is this "personal responsibility" you speak of on the part of the DJs at the radio station? Are they not required to have any for the purpose of ratings?
***The station (FM 107.4 out here) is a hip-hop outfit; I was surprised at her age, RN background (if true) she participated.***
Three things that should have prevented this from happening to her are her age, her education level,
and her income. Looks to me from the pic that they were a family that could afford a Wii. She doesn't seem to fit the hip-hop demographic, either. Very strange indeed.
It wasn't the cost of the item. The problem with obtaining a Wii is that you just can't find them. The new gaming system supply problem is purposely caused by Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony, etc...to create hype and up demand.
Could be there was something else wrong with her. Maybe she just overcame an illness. Maybe her enzymes or lipids or proteins or something were out of whack. She could have had low potassium, high blood pressure, history of migraines, an infection.
There's a thousand reasons that the water could have triggered something rather than caused something. Anything out of place or not normal on her last medical exam will be brought up as a possibility.
Good idea! As an added bonus, he can use the same headstone for Susan Odd and Jack Weird.
The radio station put her up to it.
The really difficult part about this is that most people don't know that drinking too much water can be fatal. Everyone thinks it's harmless fun, where the worst that can happen is that you might wet yourself.
So it's difficult to think of an analogy, because most things that are dangerous are fairly obviously dangerous. But let's say I run one of those NASCAR rides at the race track where you get into the car and it jostles around and shows moving pictures of the track like you're sitting in the driver's seat of a NASCAR race car. Doesn't SEEM dangerous--thousands of people do it all the time, but it can cause seizures in some people. If you're running that ride and you don't warn me that it can cause seizures, you're going to be on the hook for damages that I might suffer if I have a seizure. It's just the cost of doing business--when people get hurt, you pay.
I would say the same thing applies here. Just because she did this voluntarily doesn't let the radio station off the hook. It's still their stunt.
They didn't provide medical screening or care to verify if the contestant were ok.
The DJs knew it was dangerous and someone could die. They had no medical personnel available to give a medical opinion. This is where I think the station will lose its civil court case.
That's true, but there's a doctrine in the law called the "eggshell skull doctrine," which basically stands for the proposition that you take your victims as you find them. Maybe it so happens that 99.9% of the general public wouldn't have been injured by this stunt, but she was--and that's the point.
I'm not saying that the radio station will be found liable, but her other medical problems, if any, won't be a factor.
"Since Li. [v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804], California cases uniformly have recognized that so long as an express assumption of risk agreement does not violate public policy (see e.g., Tunkl v. Regents of University of California (1963) 60 Cal.2d 92, 95‑101 [32 Cal.Rptr. 33, 383 P.2d 441, 6 A.L.R.3d 693] ), such an agreement operates to relieve the defendant of a legal duty to the plaintiff with respect to the risks encompassed by the agreement and, where applicable, to bar completely the plaintiff's cause of action. (See, e.g., Madison v. Superior Court (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 589, 597‑602 [250 Cal.Rptr. 299], and cases cited.)" (Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296, 308‑309, fn 4.)
"[W]hat the language of [a release] means is a 'matter of interpretation for the courts and not controlled in any sense by what either of the parties intended or thought its meaning to be....' [Citation.]" (Citizens Utilities Co. v. Wheeler (1957) 156 Cal.App.2d 423, 432.) Mr. Conway's subjective understanding that he thought the release applied to what might happen " 'up the trail' not in the paddock area," without more, does not affect our analysis.
As this court has said before, " '[t]he standards which a release such as this one must meet are well established. "To be effective, a release need not achieve perfection...." [Citation.] Thus, "[a]s long as the release constitutes a clear and unequivocal waiver with specific reference to a defendant's negligence, it will be sufficient. [Citations.] For it to be valid and enforceable, a written release exculpating a tortfeasor from liability for future misconduct must be clear, unambiguous and explicit in expressing the intent of the parties. [Citation.] If a tortfeasor is to be released from such liability the language used 'must be clear, explicit and comprehensible in each of its essential details. Such an agreement, read as a whole, must clearly notify the prospective releasor or indemnitor of the effect of signing the agreement.' [Citation.]" [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (Allabach, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 1015.)
Conway v. Holman Ranch, California Court of Appeals, 2003 WL 22138983 (September 16, 2003)
----
The bottom line is that the civil case will come down to the language on the release, which is not public at this time.
And how would that sign help you if you read it? Do you know that you're susceptible to seizures?
I mean, if you don't know, then the sign does you no good at all, does it?
If you DO know that you're susceptible to seizures, wouldn't common sense tell you not to get on that ride? Shouldn't you be aware of what might cause a seizure? Isn't it in YOUR best interest to find out what might cause a seizure?
That's called personal responsibility. No sign necessary.
Poor kids. Stupid mother. Idiotic Radio Station.
I heard she was 28 years old and competing for a "Wii"? (computer A.I. device for gaming I believe). She had time to participate in this childish contest with 3 kids? This is a tragic and stupid story on so many levels.
Prayers for her family.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.