Death after water drinking contest:
 

Since we already have a death threat pizza thread, this is another news story:
Woman Dies After Water-Drinking Contest

AP
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (Jan. 14) - A woman who competed in a radio station's contest to see how much water she could drink without going to the bathroom died of water intoxication, the coroner's office said Saturday.
http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles...0010000000001\
http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles...90001?cid=2194

Sad she only did the contest to try and win a Wii for her 3 kids.

Hypernatremia's a bitch!

Wonder if they will get banned or suspended?

People should know better.

That's really interesting because such contests should be illegal considering the potential for harm.

HC such contests are okay as long as Greeks aren't the ones doing them? It should be considered hazing for a prize, since doing so for Greekdom is considered hazing for a "prize."

The radio station should have known better.

Sure the contest's tagline sounded cute, but they really should have put more thought into the potential risks before asking people to drink tons of water. (You know, more thought than "if you think this might harm your health, don't do it")

Mabeee they shud call Nationals!!!!! :mad: :rolleyes: :eek:

Stupid iz as soopid dose!!! :mad:

Brother, some how I have a feeling that the FCC might be calling the studio on Monday or Tuesday.
As well as a few attorneys.

Given the description of the contest, it's a little surprising that a death resulted. It sounds like for the first hour or so, they were only given a certain amount of water to drink in a certain time period. I guess that they didn't expect anyone's bladder to be able to keep up.

I was looking around online, and water poisoning seems more often to occur when a person drinks a large volume of water all at once. The rate that they seemed to be giving the water seemed to be slower than the amount of water the average person's body can excrete.

I'm guessing that the contest sponsors didn't think anyone would be able to wait that long to use the bathroom.

I'm not suggesting that the contest was a good idea or that it's not tragic that a woman died, just that the method of the contest did seem to minimize the risk.

The Vice President of Promotions at the station was quoted as being "stunned."

My guess is that a lot of people don't know that drinking large amounts of water can be dangerous.

I'm sure the FCC will have to take a look at this, but wonder if there will be anything actionable under the Communications Act from which it derives its power.

I'd guess the station will have a pretty heavy civil suit from the woman's family.

It was a stupid contest.

Isn't that the truth though!


This type of thing is actually little known outside of "US GREEKS" who do things for malicious purposes only!:rolleyes:

DeltAlum, I wonder how much power the FCC would ahve over this?

Would this be like droppingm turkeys from heliocopters and finding out they do not fly?

WKRP, Cinncianti and some other dummies?

That's my point. I doubt that the Communications Act (although it's been quite a while since I've studied it) would cover this kind of foolishness.

Although it may not true anymore, with the exception of certain Federal officials like the President, murder was not a Federal crime for many years -- perhaps it still isn't, I don't know.

The FCC can only enforce the rules and laws that Congress has charged it with enforcing. My best guess is that if there are penalties for the station, they will come through local statutes or civil proceedings.

I definitely think this is the case. To be very honest, up until a few years ago (2002-2003?), I didn't know drinking large amounts of water could kill you. The only reason I know now was because some pledges of a nearby fraternity were killed during a hazing incident in which the pledges were forced to drink lots of water.

The prosecutors of this show could be indicted for manslaughter. There will definitely be some wrongful death charges filed.

I don't think the station will "get away" with anything.

A local station here, Star 94.1, ran this exact same contest in the evening last week. I think it was also on Friday. I seriously thought this was a local story until I read that it was in Sacramento. When I went shopping tonight the evening DJs were freaking out and talking to some expert who said it only takes a gallon of water for this to happen. The DJs swore they would never do something that stupid again.

Kevin, do you really think so? I have no idea, but is offering a potential reward for drinking water enough to be guilty of manslaughter?

Remember, these were adults who elected to participate in a public contest in hopes of winning a video game. Surely more of the responsibility ought to rest with individuals who elect to participate. It's not a situation in which they face punishment or harm for not participating, unlike hazing cases.


Now, I expect a civil suit from the woman's family in which they will fault the station for creating a dangerous situation, but criminal charges would surprise me.

Who knows?

Has anyone seen more about how much water the woman drank total? What size were the water bottles after the first hour?

Does anyone else wonder why no one else got sick?

A few more links:
Why is too much water dangerous?

WHO, WHAT, WHY?
The Magazine answers... :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6263029.stm
Ms Strange had hoped to win the video game system for her three children believing a few extra pints of the thirst-quenching would do no harm besides overloading the bladder. Participants first started off on small 220ml (8 ounces) bottles of water at 15-minute intervals. Those who progressed beyond five or more bottles without showing any discomfort were then given larger bottles to drink.:
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/20261.html
Woman loses life over a Wii

By CRISTINA JEWETT

McClatchy News Service

SACRAMENTO - Contestants in a radio stunt called ''Hold Your Wee for a Wii'' have revealed new details about an on-air water drinking contest that left a 28-year-old mother of three dead.
Jennifer Lea Strange died after drinking well over a half gallon of water Friday during the ''Morning Rave'' program on KDND-FM. About 18 contestants vied for a Nintendo Wii gaming console by drinking as much water as they could without going to the bathroom; Strange took second place.:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/16466226.htm

The last link has a lot of new information that contradicts the previous info.

It's going to be interesting to see what shakes out of the lawsuit, and it seems to me that some other contestants are positioning themselves to sue.

Manslaughter? Hell yes. The radio station created a risk which they probably should have known about which resulted in the death of someone. Will a prosecutor file charges? Dunno.. will a jury convict? No clue. Can a case be made? Sure. At the very least, a "Negligent Homicide" case could lie.

The D.A. might want to make an example out of this radio station, he might be a publicity freak (D.A.s are politicians and drawn to these sorts of cases like moths to light -- see Nagin).

I suspect you mean Nifong, right?

Are you a lawyer?
What standards have to be present to charge for each thing?

(I realized that I seem more sceptical than I mean to. I'm not trying to challenge you. I'm just interested in knowing how it works.)

I meant Nifong.

I'm not a lawyer. I'm just a 2L. Standards would vary from state to state. I'd say negligent homicide, if it exists in that state would be fairly easy to make out.

You just have to say that there was a danger that the defendant caused -- and that danger was the cause of the victim's death. It varies though, as I said. For negligent homicide, the defendant doesn't even have to have known about the risk.

Accidentally driving over someone in a crosswalk because you were chatting on your cell phone would probably be negligent homicide. Even though you didn't see the person in front of your car, you have a duty to act in a way which generally involves avoiding pedestrians. You breached that duty by hitting a pedestrian. You were the cause of that accident, etc... Similarly, the radio company had a contest which was inherently dangerous. They should have known that drinking too much water can be fatal. They were the cause of that woman drinking the water. Whoever decided to put that contest on could be a manslayer.

It's tough to make out the elements -- partially because I have no idea what the laws are over there. Also partially because I'm a little fuzzy on that subject for some reason (even though my final was only a few weeks ago).

I am NOT a lawyer or law student, but I thought that the standard often had to do with care that a reasonable person would show, and I don't know how widespread knowledge of the dangers of drinking too much water are.

Sure, now it seem like they should have known, and that's why I expect them to get sued. But I doubt they, or most people, would have known the danger before or during the contests.

I'm also trying to figure out how likely it is that 32 ounces of water in a hour is to kill a person. More dangerous than you might think, sure, but lethal weapon in most circumstances, I don't know.

Who knew that Wikipedia had such an extensive list of terms for killing people and such a complete discussion of negligent homicide?

That nurse who may have called in according to the last article John posted and the radio stations response may end up being pretty important.

This quote from the Miami Herald article would seem to bolster Kevin's opinion...

"Two years ago a 21-year-old fraternity pledge at California State University, Chico, died after a night of hazing during which he drank excessive amounts of water. Four members of the fraternity later pleaded guilty to charges including involuntary manslaughter."

Hazing incident v. radio station contest. Two very different things, in my opinion. I wonder if they had the contestants sign some sort of release prior to entering. It'll be interesting to see how this progresses.

I'm not excusing the radio station at ALL, but wouldn't the contest participants have to sign a waiver or something?

Paging the lawyer types.... :D

That's what I think too. I would be really surprised if the risk management/legal counsel didn't make the station have all contestants sign a waiver/release. I don't know if it would prevent any legal action by the deceased woman's family, but it would probably minimize some of the damages awarded at the very least.

I don't know why but this reminds me of the infamous "Bum Fights".... it's amazing what people will do for money or, in this case, a video game console.

Now, while it can become bad press, I would imagine that they signed a waver for being stupid and liability.

But nothing has come up about this?

Those types of waivers aren't always effective, especially if the defendant's conduct rises to the level of criminal conduct.

Agreed, no one said the phantom waiver/release would be iron clad if it does exist. But it would make the situation a little more interesting.

I certainly wouldn't put wikipedia up against Kevin's real law education, but I tend to think that the circumstances in the hazing case and the radio stadion situation are going to me more different that they might seem at first.

Well, I don't have a law education, I have a few classes so far. Let's be clear about that, I'm not a lawyer, and anything I say is just the opinion of a half-educated law student.

Let me just throw this out... Imagine your group has a waiver and consent form for its pledges waiving any liability in the event of hazing.

Think that holds up?

I agree that these are very different situations.

Also, as to the following comment from Kevin:

They should have known that drinking too much water can be fatal. They were the cause of that woman drinking the water.

The contestant should have known that drinking too much water can be fatal. She caused herself to drink the water.

This is the distinction I would be trying to exploit, but honestly the 'bad facts make bad law' cliche couldn't apply any more here (hard-to-find prize, going to kids, station oversight, semi-moderation insinuates forethought of consequences . . . and the existence of the waiver probably plays very bad for the station in any civil proceedings, contrary to intuition). Huge potential to be craptacular.

True, and there's also the potential for jurors to think something like holy crap whatever the actual law is this person was really freaking stupid and good thing she's been weeded out of the gene pool before having more kids so yay defendants.

$10 says there will be a Law and Order episode of this in four weeks, one week after the episode featuring an NFL player being gunned down outside a club.

I think you are right; let's time it.

I do expect something to happen with the civil suit. I kind of wonder if it will go to court or if the station will work hard to settle it because the potential for disaster is so great, not to mention that this isn't what they had in mind with their publicity stunt.

I want to preface this by saying that I'm sorry the woman is dead and that her death is tragic. I'm sympathic to her family. That said:

In a better world, the adult woman would be responsible for her own actions and it would be accepted by society that when an adult participates voluntarily in any organized activity, then you assume all the risks that went along with the activity as described. If you enter a water-drinking-not-going-to-the-restroom contest, then any risk related to excess water drinking are waived by you because you participated. It just seems reasonable.

I know it's not the world we live in.

In this present situation, I think it's going to be mess, but I don't expect criminal charges.

When you look at the hazing cases, it seems to me in my uniformed opinion, that more elements of a crime are present than are in the radio station contest.

With a fraternity, you might have some expectation that the group would look out for your welfare. Because people being hazed are drunk and/or tired and they fear punishment or exclusion if they do not participate, it's harder to make the claim that people are freely participating in the events. You also see an intent to cause pain or do harm, and you often see neglect to seek treatment when it becomes clear that an injury had occured.

In the radio station deal, you see bad judgment because they offered a reward for engaging in what turned out to be dangerous behavior. You see adults with time to consider their participation in the activity in advance and very little at stake for not participating. I haven't heard any reports that anyone at the contest knew the woman was in any distress.

I'd be surprised if any criminal charges get filed.

Read the links-at least one of them talks about releases.
And having worked for an insurance company: We loved having Hold Harmless for us, but thought nothing about having them against us either.

This morning on a local station the two DJ's were talking about this and started to remember a problem that they almost had during a promo.

For several years, a listener would win a run though a bank vault which was filled with new bills of all amounts. Had a few minutes to take what they could out.

Now what could happen? Well, it seems one winner started to feel a bit weak and they thought he was going to collapse from exhaustion..

A few more links:
Another water death

OK, LET'S GET THIS straight: Drinking too much water at one time can be deadly. One would think that we had learned that lesson with the tragic 2005 death of 21-year-old Matthew Carrington, but apparently not everyone did....:
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/...s/16470317.htm

Water drinking death contest show taken off air

Fatality over Wii to be investigated......:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01...death_off_air/

Woman dies after water-drinking contest


By Ryan Lillis
The Sacramento Bee
Jan. 15, 2007 12:29 PM

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - A 28-year-old mother of three died from water intoxication hours after competing in a radio station contest to see which contestant could drink the most water without urinating, according to preliminary autopsy results released........Strange's death comes nearly two years after a 21-year-old fraternity pledge at California State University, Chico, died after a night of strenuous exercise and excessive water drinking. Four members of the fraternity later pleaded guilty in connection with his death.
One member of the fraternity eventually pleaded guilty to felony involuntary manslaughter and misdemeanor hazing, two pleaded guilty to being accessories to manslaughter and hazing, and a fourth pleaded guilty to hazing.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...eath15-ON.html

Ha, while I love the train of thought, it doesn't really pass Occam's Razor at all - just because it's what you would think, doesn't mean Jane Soccermom agrees . . . and I KNOW you know this.

I think you should come pick all my juries pro bono. Can I arrange this?