Death after water drinking contest:

[UGAalum94]

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?

[jon1856]

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

[UGAalum94]

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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

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?

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).

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.)

[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.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Manslaughter? Hell yes.

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."

[OtterXO]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

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.

[CutiePie2000]

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....

[OtterXO]

Originally Posted by CutiePie2000

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....

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.

[Tom Earp]

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?

[Kevin]

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

[OtterXO]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.