Verdict in “Hold Your Wee for a Wii” Fatality

• October 30, 2009

Once a year, it seems, you hear a story about alcohol poisoning somewhere where someone tried to drink too much too fast. But, have you ever heard of anyone dying from water intoxication?
A Sacramento radio station had a promotion to win a game system in their “Hold Your Wee for a WII” contest. According to the Smoking Gun:

Jennifer Strange, a 28-year-old mother of three, died on January 12 (2007) after drinking almost two gallons of water while taking part in a giveaway contest sponsored by Sacramento’s KDND-FM. The contest awarded a Nintendo console to the person who could avoid urinating (or vomiting) after drinking a large quantity of water.

Today, a verdict was handed down, holding the radio station and its parent company 100% responsible for Strange’s negligent death and awarded her family $16.57 million in damages.
Sadly, a caller to the program during the contest, who identified herself as a nurse, tried to warn the on air personalities of the dangers of water intoxication but was ignored.
Cross Posted at Proof Positive

Tags: Uncategorized

http://Array TheTodd

“So if I invite you to a game of Russian Roulette, are you suggesting that in accepting a potentially fatal game you’re not responsible for your own death?”

You’re really comparing hyper-hydration with Russian Roulette? There have been like 6 cases of people dying from water intoxication. ~30,000 people died from gunshots last year.

And to answer your question: I would have some responsibility for my death, and you would have a goddamned shit-ton of responsibility for it.

The radio station invited Jennifer onto their property. They now have a responsibility for her.

“.. the duty is not to prevent damagebut to use reasonable care to prevent it and it has to be determined what is reasonable care. Even if there is unusual danger, the duty to use reasonable care to prevent damage may be performed by notice(…)”

The radio station had a duty of care (to provide reasonable care to prevent Jennifer from any damage), and they breached it–they gave her the water without informing her of the risks. This is so obscenely open-and-shut it hurts my head.
TheTodd

Kenny:

1) This woman chose to enter a contest that she knew was going to cause massive discomfort and could probably damage her organs if she went too long.2) Before ingesting the water, she was told by a medical professional that what she was doing was extremely dangerous and potentially fatal.3) She was schooled on the effects of water intoxication

I’m sorry, can you please cite 1, 2, and 3? They’re completely irrelevant to the case, of course, but I’m interested where you heard them. Were you on the jury?
TheTodd

“Awarding people who die or injure themselves doing dangerous activity only rewards and encourages self-abuse.”

I’m simply astounded that you refuse to see how the radio station is liable here. They invited this woman onto their program, and encouraged her to do an activity that they knew was life-threatening, without informing her of the risks. Do you think there was no duty of care, or no breach?

The actual verdict–that the radio station was negligent in the woman’s death–is not even remotely controversial. (California is a comparative negligence state, not contributory.)
Sam

You used the word “invited” not twisted her arm or held a shotgun to her head.They (radio station) knew it was dangerous.Are they the medical professionals now? Neither had any medical background and both have the responsibility to check first I think liablity is with both parties and its a draw in my book.She was just as negligent in not asking also.Where does common sense come into this.We can and should trust our own common sense first.Would you trust the radio station to tell you to jump off a bridge,that it is safe or are you going to trust yourself?
TheTodd

“16.57 million? You wonder why insurance keeps getting more expensive. $1 million would have been more reasonable.”

$1 million? You wonder why insurance keeps getting more expensive. $40,000 would have been more reasonable.
Sam

Where is the personal responsibility here? With the vast amount of information we have access to today,would you not question first? So her family is awarded this amount for her stupidity.As that family member,I would not have gone there in the first place.$16 mil for a $300 WII!!!! Lets get real here.But also keep in mind that the lawyers in this case were paid LARGE sums of money out of that settlement,more than the family will see.Thats why you don’t hear lawyers speaking out against the health bill,as tort reform is not at the top of the list. RIP common sense,but we sure do miss you.
sayanything-9974

This story pisses me off.
sayanything-1439

They were just practicing being congressmen. They refused to listen…

atease
Pfeh

Darwin awards are for people who manage to remove themselves from the gene pool BEFORE passing on their characteristics.
sayanything-453

mplsbob

16.57 million? You wonder why insurance keeps getting more expensive. $1 million would have been more reasonable.

Too bad you were not on the jury. Now we all have to pay more insurance.
sayanything-1317

1) Every man woman and child knows that ingesting large quanitities of liquid and refusing to go to the bathroom causes pain. This is a simple fact of anatomy that every person has dealt with. Also, people are taught in grade school that the bladder can rupture and be damaged by excess liquid.
2) A nurse called the show and told everyone there that what they were doing was dangerous.
3) Nothing more than “this can kill you” needs to be said.

Furthermore:
4) The questions you asked are not only cited in EVERY story about this, but are all mentioned in the court documents. (Thus you’re a moron for asking.)
5) All are completely relevant.

And just for my own fun.
6) Dear God, you’re an idiot.
mplsbob

16.57 million? You wonder why insurance keeps getting more expensive. $1 million would have been more reasonable.
sayanything-453

Kenny in reply to TheTodd

So if I invite you to a game of Russian Roulette…..

First off, I’d make sure you have lot’s of liability insurance……. /sarc

You would not ever invite anyone to a game of Russian Roulette.
Imaginary scenarios do not count.

The radio station had a degree of responsibility, and the jury determined how much. Period.

If one convinces/entices a mentally disabled person into consuming large quantities of rat poison, is that person absolved from responsibility?
Because as some suggest the person voluntarily took the poison. No one forced him to.
sayanything-1317

So the woman was mentally disabled?

Facts here:

This woman chose to enter a contest that she knew was going to cause massive discomfort and could probably damage her organs if she went too long. Before ingesting the water, she was told by a medical professional that what she was doing was extremely dangerous and potentially fatal. She was schooled on the effects of water intoxication. Despite that, she continued, and died as an effect of her stupidity.

I can assure you that your chances of dying are 1/6 if you play my game of Russian Roullete, but you know that your chances of dying via my game are 0% if you don’t play. If you knowingly put the gun to your head and pull the trigger, you share some culpability in the loss of your own life. Perhaps I shouldn’t have dared you, but your stupid self shouldn’t have pointed the gun at your head and pulled the trigger.

So unless this woman was retarded, your case falls flat. And let’s not pretend juries always get it right.
sayanything-1317

So your entire line of logic is, I hold more responsibility for you than you do. I’m sorry, but your world is upside down. If I invite you to shoot yourself in the head, and you do it, no rational person would say I have more to do with your death than you do. Moreover, someone walks by and tells you “Gee, buddy, that’s really dumb, you could shoot yourself in the head.” Yet you still do it. Maybe I shouldn’t have asked you to do it. But your mentally damaged self could have always said…NO.

“They had the duty…”

Dude you contradict yourself so much its not funny. She was informed of the risks via a caller, who told her it was potentially fatal. Regardless, as you point out, like 6 people died last year of this.

Talk about holding two standards. You’re not responsible for endangering your own life, but other people are more responsible for letting you do it, than you are for doing it. My God, what color is the sky in your upside-down backwards world?
sayanything-1317

Other fun facts.

The “victim” signed a release form informing her that what she was doing was dangerous, and releasing the station from responsibility if she was injured or died (again, so safe she might die and all…..)
The terms of the contract said she couldn’t vomit. If something could cause vomiting, it’s not safe.
The plaintiffs lied in their lawsuit in claiming that she had not signed a waiver (which is a requirement to participate in any contest).Other lies were also told in the complaint.
The complaint contradicts itself in claiming that the defendants both had knowledge that what they were doing was going to be fatal, and blaming them for not doing research to know that what they were doing was potentially fatal. Such contradictory claims are a claim for appeal.
The claim that they knew and talked about the potential fatality of the contest invalidates their claim that the victim couldn’t have known about the risks.
headward

$16.57 million? Just give her a Darwin Award. That should work.

I’m glad were not getting any tort reform. Considering a good chunk of that $16.57 million is going to the lawyers because they’re the real heros.
sayanything-1317

Sitting around “holding your wee” is potentially damaging to your organs, depending on how long it goes on. There is a certain amount of risk associated with drinking or eating WAY too much, and a risk associated with not allowing yourself to go to the bathroom.

Awarding people who die or injure themselves doing dangerous activity only rewards and encourages self-abuse.
sayanything-1317

So if I invite you to a game of Russian Roulette, are you suggesting that in accepting a potentially fatal game you’re not responsible for your own death?

Downing a lot of any kind of liquid and not going to the bathroom is self endangerment. They even have Darwin awards for these kinda people. She heard the nurse tell her it was dangerous too, and refused to follow medical advice.

Yea, let’s ignore her massive stupidity that led to her death.
sayanything-1317

In short the plantiffs acknowledge offhandedly that every single claim they make is offset by another claim they make and that they are basically lying through their teeth. The victim couldn’t have known that what she was doig was dangerous…despite endless references to death by water intoxication and jokes made to that extent. Despite the fact that the hosts knew that what they were doign was dangerous, they didn’t do enough research to realize that what they were doing was dangerous. Etc.

This is clearly bogus, and Todd is willing to not only ignore his legal and reading capabilities, but also his logical ones as well.

Better luck next time bud.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Verdict in “Hold Your Wee for a Wii” Fatality

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments