Radio Station Facing Homicide Probe And Lawsuit - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-20-2007, 01:29 AM   #46
Refugee
 
dazzlingamy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The city of blinding lights and amazing coffee - Melbourne.
Posts: 2,468
Local Time: 06:36 AM
It doesn't make her stupid not at all, but it doesn't make the radio hosts more arseholey because they probably thought thats too. Oh it won't happen to us, and it did and shit, its a horrible horrible experience.

But i disagree with involuntary manslaughter. I think if you accidently kill someone, it was an accident! Why should you pay for it? IT just seems like revenge or something.

Now i do believe the radio station should be held in negligence because they obvioously didn't show a duty of care, but nothing more then that
__________________

__________________
dazzlingamy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2007, 09:50 AM   #47
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 08:36 PM
Maybe it would have been an accident hadn't they known of water intoxication.

But, they did admit to knowing about the risk, they knew people can die and they didn't react in any way when the woman complaint about feeling very sick.

Sorry, but that's not an accident at all.
__________________

__________________
Vincent Vega is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2007, 10:13 AM   #48
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
randhail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Outside Providence
Posts: 3,557
Local Time: 02:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean

Oh, and one other thing. I think the smug critcisms of this woman who entered the contest are really arrogant. If anyone truly did not know the risks, it may have been her. Like the hosts, she may have heard stories of water intoxication, but thoubht that was a "one in a million thing" that would never happen to her. Practically EVERY human being on the planet thinks "it won't happen to me" at least at some point in their lives so that doesn't make her stupid. And when 90% of the people posting here admit that they had never heard of water intoxication, I don't see she how she qualifies as some "stupid woman willing to do anything for a video game." It's the height of arrogance to say so.
If hearing about water intoxication once can make the DJs responsible, like you said, how can it also not make this woman responsible? Thinking it's never going to happen doesn't absolve her from being responsible for her decisions and is really a terrible way to make decisions in life.
__________________
randhail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2007, 11:00 AM   #49
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,648
Local Time: 01:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by dazzlingamy

But i disagree with involuntary manslaughter. I think if you accidently kill someone, it was an accident! Why should you pay for it? IT just seems like revenge or something.

Now i do believe the radio station should be held in negligence because they obvioously didn't show a duty of care, but nothing more then that
With your logic drunk drivers who acidentally kill someone would get off...
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2007, 09:32 PM   #50
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 06:36 AM
Amy, manslaughter is essentially killing someone when you didn't have the intent, which is what this case is. The law doesn't allow us to say "Oops, didn't meant for THAT to happen!"
That logic doesn't match, either, bvs. If the radio station promotions department knew, and as a result stated very publicly that entering involved risk, then yes. As a drunk driver must know that they are engaging in a very risky activity. The DJ, as you said earlier, did know when the nurse rang in to warn of the danger. He chose to ignore it and laugh it off showing not only his ignorance, but that of the station, too.

Maycocksean made a very good point about the lady who died in this. The fact that it happened shows that the radio station also didn't buy it - the DJ out of idiocy, and the promotions department out of utter lack of due care. The fact that this lady died is their responsibility. They asked her to place herself in a situation without themselves knowing what risks there were, and therefore not being able to inform her. The DJ then proceeded to ignore warning, and the higher powers failed to react and call the stunt off until they could at least clarify what the nurse was warning them of.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2007, 10:36 PM   #51
Refugee
 
dazzlingamy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The city of blinding lights and amazing coffee - Melbourne.
Posts: 2,468
Local Time: 06:36 AM
I just think its scary if you accidently kill someone (say running over a child who runs out in the road to get a ball) that you could go to gaol for that. It frightens me because it would obviously be an accident, and you didn't intend to kill anyone and you wern't in the wrong, so why should you be punished. (actually would you be punished? im a little sketchy on things like that, just scared of the whole damn thing!)

BVS - i would never condone drink driving, obviously being drunk impairs your judgement, and therefore you are responsible if you hit someone.

Quote:
Maycocksean made a very good point about the lady who died in this. The fact that it happened shows that the radio station also didn't buy it - the DJ out of idiocy, and the promotions department out of utter lack of due care. The fact that this lady died is their responsibility. They asked her to place herself in a situation without themselves knowing what risks there were, and therefore not being able to inform her. The DJ then proceeded to ignore warning, and the higher powers failed to react and call the stunt off until they could at least clarify what the nurse was warning them of.
I understand it better from this. I do think now that something should be done, because when you put it down in like that, it really does show how no duty of care was really taken. Even if they didn't believe it could happen to them, they still should have clarified or sent for a DR or something.
__________________
dazzlingamy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2007, 11:42 PM   #52
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
sue4u2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: hatching some plot, scheming some scheme
Posts: 6,628
Local Time: 02:36 PM
No one there could do even a basic google search of "drinking too much water"?
Before this happened, I'm sure the definition would have been in the first few links.

Now they'll be looking up:
From Wikipedia
Negligent homicide:
is a charge brought against persons, who by inaction, allow others under their care to die.
__________________
sue4u2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2007, 12:15 AM   #53
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 02:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by dazzlingamy
I just think its scary if you accidently kill someone (say running over a child who runs out in the road to get a ball) that you could go to gaol for that. It frightens me because it would obviously be an accident, and you didn't intend to kill anyone and you wern't in the wrong, so why should you be punished. (actually would you be punished? im a little sketchy on things like that, just scared of the whole damn thing!)
Yes, people are charged with crimes and punished all the time, for even lesser degrees of responsibility. My 7th grade bio teacher hit a patch of black ice on the way to a Thanksgiving dinner. The car crashed, his wife died, and he broke both of his legs in over 40 pieces. A peer from my high school was backing out of her driveway and hit a pedestrian and killed her. A man from a local church was backing out of his driveway and ran over and killed his own son. All of these cases were investigated because there was some degree of negligence leading to the death of another person. You can go to jail for these things, but in most cases won't. However if you're running lights or stop sings, driving recklessly or drunk, you'll probably go to jail if you kill someone, even though it's always and "accident." If you leave a baby or animal locked in a car and it dies form exposure to heat, you'll go to jail. This doesn't even touch on the types of civil suits that can arise from what other people accuse of being negligence. For example, my friend lives on a lake and one night, some kids sneaked onto their dock, dove into shallow water, and got hurt. Even though THEY trespassed, they brought suit against my friend's family for not having a "No diving" sign on their dock, indicating the water is shallow. Another example would be a friend of mine got into a car accident where she rear-ended another car. A woman passenger in the other car was pregnant at the time and miscarried. She blamed the miscarriage on the car accident and brought suit against my friend for $100,000.

The case of the water poisoning is even more compelling because they DID know of the dangers and decided to ignore them and laugh about them.
__________________
Liesje is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2007, 12:40 AM   #54
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 02:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by dazzlingamy
I just think its scary if you accidently kill someone (say running over a child who runs out in the road to get a ball) that you could go to gaol for that. It frightens me because it would obviously be an accident, and you didn't intend to kill anyone and you wern't in the wrong, so why should you be punished. (actually would you be punished? im a little sketchy on things like that, just scared of the whole damn thing!)

It depends on a lot of factors. Like, for example, was his driving negligent? Did he drive too quickly in a residential zone, etc.
__________________
anitram is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2007, 01:20 AM   #55
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 02:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by randhail


If hearing about water intoxication once can make the DJs responsible, like you said, how can it also not make this woman responsible? Thinking it's never going to happen doesn't absolve her from being responsible for her decisions and is really a terrible way to make decisions in life.
I think it was a little bit more than "hearing about water intoxication once" on the part of the DJs and the radio station. They heard about water intoxication. They knew that someone had died from it. They acknowledged the risks openly in that they claimed protection because she signed a waiver. They warned by a caller that the person was in trouble, and acknowledged AGAIN that they knew of the risks before ignoring the caller's advice. Now if you can show me that Ms. Strange had the same level of information as the radio personalities had, well then maybe you have a case. I'll have to go back and visit the abc link again, but right now as far as I remember she had NONE of that prior knowledge, and at MOST may have heard only vague stories about someone dying from drinking too much water and that's all.

Obviously she is responsible for her decision. . .she made a bad one and has paid the ultimate price. But I don't accept that it makes her a "stupid" person, unless you define stupidity is simply not having enough information. And while it may be true that that "it won't happen to me" is a poor way to make decisions, the reality is that is exactly how almost every person on this planet makes at least some of their decisions on a daily basis. If you've never once failed to put on your seat belt "because it won't happen to you", or changed the radio while driving or talked on a cell phone "because it won't happen to you" or just about anything else well then maybe you can make your case.

I'm not arguing that she had no responsibility. She did and she reaped the consequences. But the radio station had an even greater burden of responsibiltiy because they had more information, and they too should shoulder some of the consequences.
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2007, 02:26 AM   #56
War Child
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: ann arbor mi
Posts: 935
Local Time: 03:36 PM
from maycocksean

Quote:
Of course, as has already been pointed out, they were not "completely clueless" about the dangers. They had heard of the risks. They said so themselves. They knew of a situation in which someone had died. They mentioned this on-air as well. What seems clear from listening to the recording of the broadcast is that they weren't taking that knowledge very seriously, so I agree as you said, that they didn't actually believe anyone would die as a result of their program. Their thinking was "Okay, yeah TECHNICALLY someone could die from drinking too much water, but come on, like that's really going to happen."
What I don't get is how they believed that 'technically' someone could die from drinking too much water, but that somehow this situation, *where the whole point was to push to the extreme limits of human tolerance* for drinking water, was exempt?!

Did they believe that the person they'd heard of who died from drinking too much water had some special circumstances, like non-functioning body parts or some disease that made them specially vulnerable to death from water intoxication?

What, I'd ask, made them believe it couldn't happen again, or here, or if they asked people to drink water til they thought they would burst...
the chances of it happening, unless you have a theory about why it happened before that didn't apply now somehow, increase dramatically when you ask someone to actually *try* to drink too much water for the human body to handle.

It's like saying, hey, the chances of getting struck by lightning are really slight. So, hey, lets have a contest to see who is willing to stand the longest time out in lightning storm on a boat in a lake with a metal rod in their hands. Hey, technically, people can actually get struck by lightning in such a situation but haha like that's gonna happen on air during a radio show contest on thursday january 18th 2007.

I think it bears reiterating...people trust folks in 'authority' to take their welfare seriously. If this were a drug trials study, the company would get shut down (okay, with big Pharma, maybe not...but they'd be scolded seriously!) if they didn't warn people specifically of the risks of death associated with whatever treatment they were getting as subjects when they signed consent forms. If all she had to do was sign a general purpose form, that didn't offer the specific warnings about how one could die from water intoxication, etc., then I think she reasonably assumed that there was no undue risk here.
They had a duty to take her health very seriously given that they were the ones asking her to possibly compromise it. And they surely knew, it seems, they were asking her to possibly seriously compromise it.
__________________
ShellBeThere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2009, 11:59 AM   #57
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 02:36 PM
I saw this story on Huffington Post and remembered this case. All kinds of lawsuits.

Sacramento Bee

Survivors say stunt left them twisted

By Sam Stanton
sstanton@sacbee.com
Published: Monday, Aug. 10, 2009 - 12:00 am | Page 1A
Last Modified: Monday, Aug. 10, 2009 - 9:33 am

One woman who took part says the "Hold Your Wee for a Wii" contest left her with a fear of water, and that she can no longer listen to the radio.

Another contestant says she has gained 60 pounds and suffers from irrational mood swings.

A third worries about her own mortality, "like I am destined to die young, maybe at my own hand."

Fallout from the January 2007 contest that left one contestant dead sparked media coverage worldwide – notoriety that's likely to resume Aug. 31, when a civil trial is set to begin.

The trial centers on the death of a 28-year-old mother of three, Jennifer Strange, who died after drinking massive amounts of water during a contest on Sacramento radio station The End (KDND, 107.9 FM) to win a Nintendo Wii game console.

Court documents show how the case unfolded.

Since the contest, the radio station's owners have fired 10 people, including the DJs involved; Strange's fellow contestants developed what they say is an irrational fear of water and sued the broadcaster; Strange's husband and children filed their own wrongful-death suit; and lawyers involved have submitted thousands of pages of claims and counterclaims.

After three of Strange's fellow contestants sued the broadcaster for emotional distress, Entercom Communications Corp. sought mental exams and questioned why their alleged problems after Strange's death "magically changed" and began "affecting their ability to drink water, impacting their families, causing sleeplessness and generalized anxiety, and depression."

One had weekly thoughts of suicide, according to court documents.

The winner of the contest, Lucy Davidson, said she was terribly sick afterward and vomited while still at the station. Now, she says, she can't listen to the radio because she is afraid of contests, and in her job at Wal-Mart she experiences "an inappropriate emotional reaction" when she sees someone put bottled water in their carts.

"I have come to realize that in a way I fear water," she said in a June declaration.

And she was never able to use the Wii at the center of the contest. Instead, it sat in a hall closet for more than a year until she turned it over to her attorney and "felt a huge weight fall off my shoulders."

Fired program director sues

After being fired from his $151,200-a-year job as program director, Steven Weed sued his former employer for wrongful termination.

When Entercom offered in October to renounce any attorneys' fees if Weed would drop what it saw as a meritless case, he refused. A judge ruled in favor of Entercom in March, and the company subsequently said it wanted Weed to pay $4,746 in filing and deposition fees. He was ordered to pay $225,144.50 more in attorneys' fees.

The court eventually approved $49,997.50 in fees, and Weed later abandoned his appeals in the case.

Because the case drew so much attention, the Strange family attorneys asked the court to have jurors in the case sign declarations before and after reaching a verdict swearing they had not researched it on the Internet.

The attorneys said temptation for juror misconduct is too great in a case with such notoriety.

"For example, if an individual were to use the Yahoo search engine and typed in 'Jennifer Strange water intoxication,' it will yield 63,500 Web sites and blogs which provide detailed information concerning the death of Jennifer Strange," the motion stated. A Google search would find 63,700, it added.

Roger Dreyer, the family's lead attorney, also said in a letter to Sacramento Superior Court Judge Lloyd Phillps Jr. that because of the "tremendous amount of pretrial publicity" in the case, an initial jury panel of at least 200 potential jurors will be needed. He estimated the case could last seven weeks, with jury selection beginning Sept. 8.

The contest required participants to drink water without urinating over a three-hour period on "the Morning Rave" program. They were asked to drink 8-ounce bottles every 10 minutes. After they had consumed eight of them, they were given 16-ounce bottles to drink every 10 minutes.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2009, 12:07 PM   #58
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 02:36 PM
While I definitely held the radio station responsible for Strange's death, the legitimacy of these other claims seems highly suspect.

Sounds to me like some people want to get on the gravy train.
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2009, 12:12 PM   #59
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 02:36 PM
Yeah the bottled water thing seems a bit out there.
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com