Ten Fired After Radio Contest Tragedy

[timouse]

Woman Died Despite Listener Warning On Danger Of Chugging Too Much Water - CBS News

CBS News station KOVR-TV reports that 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, according to the broadcast news report. "They signed releases so we're not responsible, okay?"

[ollie]

This story is sickening. I hope some people get charged with criminal negligence. Ignorance is not an excuse.

[StoneMtn]

Well, it sure is nice to know the station isn't responsible. No problem, then.

I have to wonder if the release incorporated a specific term referring to the radio station's own "negligence". I don't claim to be an expert, but...

[Wassink Wild Card!]

Oh I heard about this the other day too. I felt so sick! What kind of a fucking contest is that anyways? Oh let's see who's got the best bladder! It's you ma'am, and your prize is death! Yay!

[Kanada Kev]

It's amazing that fatal accidents haven't occurred more frequently on many of the 'reality' shows (Fear Factor, Survivor, Most Extreme Elimination Challenge )

[phishtaper]

wow, who would have figured you could die from drinking too much water? that aside, after a gallon, i'd be sitting in my own pee.

[Kanada Kev]

Too much of anything is just enough ...

It's all about balance ...

[zero]

The contest was called "Hold your Wee for a Wii."

[secondtube]

Volenti?

I doubt it.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

wow, who would have figured you could die from drinking too much water? that aside, after a gallon, i'd be sitting in my own pee.

I read once that Napoleon lost a pile of soldiers in his Egypt campaign because they hadn't brought enough water and when they finally got to the Nile they overdrank.

I wonder how many people on E have ever done something similar in overcompensating for dehydration.

[The Chameleon]

wow' date=' who would have figured you could die from drinking too much water? that aside, after a gallon, i'd be sitting in my own pee. [/quote']

I read once that Napoleon lost a pile of soldiers in his Egypt campaign because they hadn't brought enough water and when they finally got to the Nile they overdrank.

I wonder how many people on E have ever done something similar in overcompensating for dehydration.

In fact most of the people who have dies on E (which is small) have not been fromthe drug but from drinking waaaaaay to much water. Usually these people have read the need to keep hydrated on E and go overboard.

As for this contest these 10 people at the radio station are lucky they are not up on charges. What a waste of life. Over a gaming system, retarded!

[StoneMtn]

I foresee a wrongful death lawsuit, rather than criminal charges; especially if the waiver of liability did not specifically refer to the radio station's own negligence.

We shall see.

[secondtube]

I know American law is different but, even if they did sign a waiver 'waiving' the station of any liability, in court would it not have to be proven that those who signed the waiver explicitly knew of any and all risks, and accepted them by signing the waiver?

i doubt the waiver explained the chances of death due to intoxication.

i find negligence and liability laws facinating.

Edited January 17, 2007 by Guest

[RayRay]

This is so disturbing, what a waste and now three kids have to grow up without a mother.

[MarcO]

I'm guessing she didn't win the contest then?

[zero]

I love the hosts names - they sound like total fucking dumbasses like their collective intelligence is in gnat proportions.

You'd be surprised what's in a waiver especially on reality TV these days. Because of the Borat stuff there's been a lot of coverage in the press about it and some things I read were saying that on this or that dating show people actually signed off on the 'contraction of sexual disease, rape, assault, death'. Like everything that could possibly happen is in the waiver. People just sign the shit.

[phorbesie]

are those really binding though?

i seem to remember at whistler for a pass you used to have to sign a waiver, which included negligence. but some families of people that died sued and won when negligence was involved.

so i'm not sure what the point of the waiver was?

[StoneMtn]

Okay:

secondtube: Essentially, that's right. Of course those principles are found in much longer cases and go into all sorts of particulars and details. Also, there is a certain amount of imputed knowledge to people, that they are assumed to know certain risks exist. I think you may have hit the nail on the head here, though, that this is not a well-known risk.

phorbesie: The Whistler waivers have been tested and have held up in Court. I don't know what cases you are talking about, unless you are referring to the cases regarding chair lifts that slid into each other due to heavy winds, with numerous people jumping off, etc. A couple years ago there was another case, though, in which substantial damages were recovered against a school board, after the school took students to Whistler. That was based on the fact that the school represented to parents that the students would be supervised, when in actual fact the teachers arrived in Whistler and said, "Okay, go have fun." As well, one of the kids took a jump in the park, and he was the one who was catastrophically injured. He was a novice snowboarder, and had he been supervised presumably a teacher would have told him not to do the jump. Further, it was argued that the kid knew the risk when he took the jump, but the lawyer acting for the family had an independent survey done, which entailed surveying students of that age. The results were that the students overwhelmingly believed that the risk was of a broken ankle, not a broken neck.

If there are other cases you are referring to, point me to them, and I'm sure there's an explanation.

[phorbesie]

i was referring to the incident where people died when several chairs fell off the chairlift track on whistler mountain. it was quite awhile ago...early 90s i think.

i know maybe mechanical issues don't always necessarily mean negligence, but i'm pretty sure the waivers include mechanical issues as well.

[StoneMtn]

Ah, as I thought. That is one of the cases I referred to. (I don't think any of the chairs actually came off, but slid into one another; although I may be misremembering.)

Yes, the waivers do refer to equipment, but there are sometimes ways around that. In this particular case, at that time, you used to be able to proceed by pleading the Railway Act, believe it or not. That will not work anymore, though, as that act no longer applies to chairlifts as of about two years ago and I expect that the same set of facts would result in a very different judgment today.

[phorbesie]

stonemtn, this is what i'm talking about. definitely negligence here!

[StoneMtn]

Yep, that's the one, and it looks like some did fall off. As I said, I think the plaintiffs might be SOL if that happened today.

Aside: An interesting point that I remember from the judgment was that one of the ski-patrolers that day was on her very first shift. She almost lost it, by the end of that day.

[phorbesie]

it would seem to me (though i am uneducated in this!) that nowadays, since you don't actually have to sign, but the waiver is simply stated on the lift ticket (ie. buying the lift ticket is equivalent to accepting the waiver) that it would be easier to sue, not more difficult? i mean, nobody actually reads the back of the lift ticket.

Quote:

There are alarms to detect safety problems. If there is something wrong with the

chair as it leaves the station, the grip force alarm goes off. It is standard

equipment. At Quicksilver, one was constantly misfiring going off twenty times a

day, so loud that skiers could hear. Paper was stuffed in it to quiet it down.

The president of Whistler believes that the BC government would not have

allowed them to operate if it wasn't safe. But the government relied on Whistler to

fix the lift. Whistler relied on the engineer who certified the lift who was on the

payroll of the US manufacturers.

As for code violations, they were no secret according to the coroner. He has

stated in his report that Whistler Mountain, the Government of British Columbia

Inspection Bureau, and the lift manufacturer were aware that there were sections

of the code to which this lift did not comply. There were two incidents which he

feels should have prompted a more thorough investigation.

Three weeks earlier, two empty chairs fell from the cable near tower 21, the same

spot as the fatal accident. Nine months earlier another empty chair plunged 75

feet from the same cable at the same point. Much to the surprise of skiers on the

lift. Although wind may have been a factor in the first incident, the second time

grips simply could not hold at the steepest angle - steeper than the lift was

designed for.

[StoneMtn]

That is also an arguable point.

If they give you the ticket, it is usually presumed that you read it. If, however, you can show that you are blind, can't read / read English, or perhaps that the clerk who sold you the ticket said something like "Ah don't worry about reading that; it's all standard stuff" (which often happens) you may be able to get around it.

There are piles of these "ticket cases", and they involve waivers on the back of tickets, signs posted, and other such things. This happens for all sorts of reasons, including skiing and othe risky sports, but also in underground parking lots where your vehicle might suffer (and does suffer) damage, and other things. They turn on their facts as to whether the person waiving their rights knew or should have known and understood what they agreed to.

[secondtube]

gotta love negligence laws.

down the road i'd like to be a commercial liability adjuster and work against those pesky lawyers, lol. :grin: