Death after water drinking contest:

[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.

[UGAalum94]

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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

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?

[valkyrie]

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

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.

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

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.

[valkyrie]

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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

.

$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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

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.

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.