Death after water drinking contest:

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

I suspect you mean Nifong, right?

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

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).

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

[UGAalum94]

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.