But why should “someone at the radio station” know more about human physiology than the woman did? Are radio stations typically staffed with biologists? I’d never heard of “water overdose” until this thread.
I would argue that the radio station had an obligation to find out if their contest posed a health risk to the contestants. A news story in the Sacramento Bee said that a nurse called the station to warn them about the health risks of water intoxication, only to be blown off by a DJ.
You’re making an awful lot of hostile assumptions about the reasons and state of mind and personality of the woman in question.
Because generally when you run any sort of corporate-sponsored contest in our society, there is an expectation that some sort of liability research has been done and appropriate precautions have been taken: that the people who designed the contest have put a little thought and concern into safety. Maybe you don’t like that, but that’s the way things are in our society and its something most people expect and rely upon. In this case, about two seconds of research would have informed them that what they were proposing was life threatening, and at least gotten them to the point where they could warn contestants about the risks they were being asked to take and have appropriate medical attention ready or at least know what signs to look for.
Again, I understand if you don’t like the idea that one party has obligations to the well being of another when it dangles treats in front of them to get them to do something that could potentially be deadly, but I think the resulting lawsuits and settlements in this case are probably going to suggest that the legal and moral obligations are, in fact, there and expected.
And if what mks57 says is true, they’re even more dicks and even more liable for pure negligence and reckless disregard for human life.
But forget the lawsuit angle for a second. You don’t think the people who devised this contest are DICKS for this? Or not?
On one hand, I completely agree with the pitting. However, if we are going to pit this one radio station, for doing this singular act, I think we need to examine alot of other “shock” methodologies that are used in the U.S. to get ratings.
The potential danger people are placed in by “social probers” and “fear factor” style antics is demonstrable. Tom Green, the crew at Jackass and dozens of radio shows have frequently encouraged behavior from people that is pretty far out and could result in harm. I remember a particular radio show that would get people to wake others up in extreme ways. One guy threw ice cold water on his buddy who was sleeping, another busted his friends bedroom door down yelling maniacly. In the first scenario, it could have put someone into shock, in the second, given some of the sentiment I have seen in our society and on these boards, the dude could have been shot thinking he was a home invader. Thus, all of these acts, just like any eating contest, drinking contest, etc…, are potentially hazardous. So, do we pit them all? Is it only bad if someone gets hurt?
On the other hand, I also have to agree with some sentiments expressed that stipulate if people enter into an agreement to participate in one of these “contests” or “shows” then they are responsible for their own actions.
We are a pretty litigous society and we always seem to want to hold someone else responsible. But, when does personal responsibility come into play? Playing pranks on unsuspecting people is one thing, but when someone knowingly enters a contest, then they have to take quite a bit of that responsibility upon themselves. If you are entering a contest, where you are being told to deny yourself standard biologically necessary functions: peeing, breathing, pooping, or you are being asked to function in a way that conflicts with biologically normal habits: sleep deprivation, excessive consumption food; then you are responsible for the outcome.
Let’s just change this scenario a little bit. Let’s say three strangers show up at Walmart at the same time to buy a Wii. They each touch the box simultaneously. Amongst themselves, they purchase the Wii and agree to have a contest to determine who gets the Wii by drinking water, and not urinating. One of them dies, should someone be held liable?
Now, we add a radio station. In what way are they an authority figure? Why should they be personally held liable because a group of people came together to do something stupid?
If they should be held personally liable, then all eating contests, social probing shocks, fear pranks etc… should be shutdown immediately, because we are, as a society, knowingly allowing illicit and dangerous activities to continue.
However, if you believe that freedom allows people to do stupid things, then how can you hold a third party accountable?
This is actually a very in-depth, debatable topic.
For the record, I am not really sure how I personally feel about this case. It has actually made me reflect very deeply on numerous things.
Is the talk show host who brings two people on their show and has one of them “come out” and profess their love to a homophobe, who then kills the other, responsible for the negative outcome?
No one MADE her drink water. No one PREVENTED her from educating herself prior to partaking in the contest. However, this argument just does not hold water for me when it comes to other possible scenarios, such as a radio show having guests play russian roullette for a Nintendo Wii. In that scenario, no one MADE them play russian roullette. No one PREVENTED them from learning that if you put a gun to your head and pulled the trigger and a bullet was in the chamber you would die. But, does that absolve them of responsibility?
Or, in a free society, should we allow ignorant people to do stupid things at the request of others? Should we allow bums to fight on tape becase they want 10 dollars? Should we allow young girls to take off their shirts, touch their privates and generally make asses of themselves on a videotape?
Wow, what a quandary. This, to me is just not an easy answer. Good debate/discussion topic.
Very good points. What you are alluding to is almost a form of self-regulation. That is, corporate entities, if they are going to create these types of contests, should either: a) have to get informed consent for every reasonably conceivable danger and b) Have a reasonable level of safety responders.
As for whether or not I think they are dicks, yes, I do think they are. But, let me take that one step further: What are all the people who listen to, watch and support these types of activities. Because there are a whole crapload of people out there who just love “reality TV” and radio. It seems we are a society of dicks and if so, then why should the corporation or any entity be held liable for something a significant portion, if not the majority, of the populace deems acceptable?
(emphasis mine)
Tell me that was unintentional.
Just for fun, I did a little research on KDND, the radio station responsible for the contest.
They’re owned by Entercom Communications, which owns stations in medium- to large-sized markets. In Sacramento, they own six stations, of which KDND is one. Overall, they’re in 22 markets. I further looked up the station’s ratings; they’re not only not number 1, they’re not even the top-rated Entercom station. They’re 11th in the market, fourth among Entercom stations, and the ratings dropped from the summer to the fall ratings period. So I’m thinking the whole thing is nothing more than a cheap ratings stunt.
That said, though, Entercom is not a small company. I’d be very surprised if they let stations make up and produce their own contests without corporate oversight; at the very least, the station should’ve run this one by the lawyers first to ascertain risk. If the station did so and the lawyers signed off on it, the parent company is responsible because they knew or should’ve known the risks inherent in such a stunt. I’d also argue that if the station were not required to seek legal and corporate approval, that doesn’t speak well for the company either, because a see-no-evil environment lends itself to this kind of tragedy. Because that’s what this whole thing was. It was a tragedy waiting to happen, and Entercom and KDND should be held accountable for their actions.
Robin
Well, that does make a big difference. Thanks for that vital information.
Well, whatever personal responsibility the woman may have had for her situation has been answered: you will note that she is dead. Seriously, what are you advocating here, digging up her bones and throwing rocks at them?\
We still have to consider the responsibility of the radio station, and I think there is plenty of blame to be apportioned there. Do you think the radio station managers are in any way responsible for the contest and its tragic results?
I used the hand grenade analogy as an extreme example: obviously, there are some stunts so insanely dangerous that settin up a contest involving them is inviting lawsuits. Was the water contest such a stunt? How much responsibility does the station have, and how should it be apportioned? I get the impression you think the answer is “none” and I don’t understand that at all.
Let’s see if I can make sense without enough coffee…
Some here say that a lawsuit is in order because the station should have known the dangers of water intoxication. Others say a lawsuit is not in order because the woman should have known the dangers of water intoxication. So the station should be sued because the dangers of drinking too much water is somewhat well known, and how could the contestant have known it was dangerous? Double standard.
But I do think a lawsuit is in order. I’ve heard that people can die from drinking too much water. It’s one of those random facts that pop into my head from time to time. But i don’t think it’s something ‘everybody knows’. As someone said in the other thread, ask ten people on the street and nine of them will say it’s safe to drink lots of water. Having grown up in the Southwest, I’ve been places where people have keeled over from not staying hydrated. If I had heard of this contest water intoxication would not be the first thing that came to my mind – even though I already know it happens.
So why do I favour a lawsuit? Because the radio station set up a situation. On the surface it doesn’t seem dangerous. The expectation was (I’m sure) that the biggest danger would be groinal wetness and embarrassment. However in setting up the situation the station should have undertaken due dilligence to ensure that this contest – or any contest they set up – is safe. I mentioned Chubby Bunny earlier. Who dies from marshmallows? It’s not like Russian roulette. Well, some people do choke on marshmallows and anyone who sets up a contest should research the game to see if it can be deadly. In the ‘Wee for a Wii’ contest, there must have been more than one person discussing the contest. I think it’s likely (from personal experience chatting over random ideas, sometimes for a film and sometimes just talking) that someone would have said (in a joking manner) ‘Hey, what if someone drinks so much water his stomach explodes?’ or ‘I just hope nobody drowns! Ha ha!’ or ‘Hey, what if someone urinates on a power cord and gets electricuted? That reminds me of this story I heard once about a dog and an electric fence…’
I think the station should have had someone research the contest to see if it’s dangerous. I just googled “drinking too much water”. The very first link is ‘Water Intoxication & Hypoatremia’ and the article says:
The third google link is ‘Can you die if you drink too much water?’. So while I would not expect ‘the Man on the Street’ to know about water intoxication, someone who sets up a contest has a responsibility to do a minimum of research. And I’m not talking about having someone get professional opinions. Simply doing a google search on “drinking too much water” would have shown the station that their contest might be deadly. Contestants, I think, have a reasonable expectation that some research has been done by the contest organisers. Thus, the radio station is at fault.
Oh, come on, Guin, nobody, not even me, could ever be as stupid as you think I am.
Also, you’re on shaky ground here as you clearly did not understand my post. Go back and try reading it with comprehension this time.
Let’s say that the station understood the risks - and limited the water intake to 1 gallon (or 4 litres for those across the pond). The need to urinate is pretty strong - and might pose health risks to the bladder, no? It sounds stupid any way it is sliced. I suspect the electrolyte imbalance could have been avoided by utilizing “Gator-Aid” or similar, but the whole thing is evidence of a seriously dumbed down populace.
Unfortunately, Johnny L.A., making things idiot-proof only produces bigger and better idiots. You got information about water intoxication by googling “drinking too much water.” I googled “drinking a lot of water”, and the first page of results was all about how good it is for you. Helps you diet, clears up your skin, helps you pass a drug test. And everybody needs to stay hydrated!
It’s not even safe to assume that someone planning to take part in this contest would realize that there is such a thing as “too much water”. Many people would only think “What happens if I drink a lot of water?” and get results that don’t account for the possibility of drinking as much as these contestants did.
I think that anyone doing ‘research’ on whether one can drink too much water is more likely to google ‘drinking too much water’ than ‘drink a lot of water’. And I think it’s safe to assume that someone planning to take part in such a contest would not look into it; but that **someone who sets up a contest ** does have a responsibility to at least do a quick google search.
Oh, the contest organizers, yeah. Not the contestants. You’re right about that. Carry on, then.
I have to admit that I have NOT read all the posts in this thread. So, if what I’m about to say has been said, my apologies.
First, the fact she couldn’t pee may not have much bearing on the tragic outcome. In other words, although she wasn’t peeing out, you can bet that urine was still being made although it was just staying in her bladder.
More importantly, death from water intoxication is rare and when it does happen, usually involves previously healthy young women (or very young kids). Look here for an old reference. (note that “hyponatremia” = the serious, potentially lethal, consequence of “water intoxication”.)
So far, this is the most sensible post in the thread. 
Well reasoned.
Indeed, the contest organizers appear to have been deficient in due dilligence, and a lawsuit on that basis is warranted. Assuming the facts as stated above are true, their negligence is highlighted by the fact that they were apparently warned and chose to ignore the warning.
For the record, I’ve never heard of this possibility of death from over-hydration before either.
Sorry, I’m not on board with suing the radio station into oblivion just because they, or their parent company, or their insurance carrier, or whoever, have Big Buck$. Obviously there was equal ignorance on the parts of the station and the unfortunate contestant. Why does the station’s ingorance carry more weight? Because they have money? Because they “set up” the situation, in which people voluntarily participated for venal reasons? To me, the bottom line is that the woman chose her own actions.
I really hate this culture of “Something bad happened, so it MUST be the fault of whoever has the deepest pockets, and they owe me money!”
You notice how I put a line break between the line addressing you directly and my summary of the situation? That signifies a paragraph which in turn means a change in main idea. Its’ not all about you, my hysteria friend.
I’m in favor of suing them into oblivion, regardless of the depth of their pockets. If that means the kids get $8.75 and a wonky turntable, so be it. As long as those pockets are empty afterwards, I’m okay. It’s one thing to have a stupid, dangerous contest and not run it by the lawyers. But when they hear from a nurse who says, “You might kill somebody like this,” they should make the least effort to make sure she isn’t right. This is what lawsuits are for.