Radio show employees fired
 

Following up the previous story, the employees were fired.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6164262.html


Wow. Just wow. How stupid are these people? All of that warning and they continued.

I'm not normally a proponent of our litigation culture, but jeez. Those people need to be sued into oblivion.

They had it coming to them. I mean it's stupid to not check something out, if you are warned about something, maybe you should consider that they are right.

Information is so readily available on the net.

http://chemistry.about.com/cs/5/f/blwaterintox.htm

Can You Really Drink Too Much Water? In a word, yes. Drinking too much water can lead to a condition known as water intoxication and to a related problem resulting from the dilution of sodium in the body, hyponatremia. Water intoxication is most commonly seen in infants under six months of age and sometimes in athletes. A baby can get water intoxication as a result of drinking several bottles of water a day or from drinking infant formula that has been diluted too much. Athletes can also suffer from water intoxication. Athletes sweat heavily, losing both water and electrolytes. Water intoxication and hyponatremia result when a dehydrated person drinks too much water without the accompanying electrolytes.

Disgusting, the whole situation is horrible

R E P O S T

Please don't make me ban you, jidar.

Stupid women. I wouldnt drink a ounce of water for a WII for my family..


That is just plain stupidity and ignorance.

You been reading Pak1983's posts way too much

what the hell. I thought the filter would get it.

somebody click the case insensitive string match checkbox.

From AOL news, this article has some dandy quotes in it:

Police Probe Death After Radio Contest
AP
(Jan. 17) - Homicide detectives are investigating the death of a woman believed to have been killed by drinking too much water in a radio station contest.


Jennifer Strange apparently died from water intoxication after taking part in a contest to see how much water one could drink without going to the bathroom.

On a tape of the Jan. 12 show, disc jockeys on KDND-FM's "Morning Rave" joke about the possible dangers of consuming too much water, at one point alluding to a college student who died during such a stunt in 2005.

A listener called the show to warn the DJs that the stunt was dangerous and that someone could die.

"Yeah, we're aware of that," one of them said.

Another DJ laughed: "Yeah, they signed releases, so we're not responsible. We're OK."

"And if they get to the point where they have to throw up, then they're going to throw up, and they're out of the contest before they die, so that's good, right?" another one said.

The Sacramento County Sheriff's Department decided to pursue the investigation Wednesday after listening to the tape, obtained by The Sacramento Bee newspaper, sheriff's spokesman Sgt. Tim Curran said.

Jennifer Lea Strange, a 28-year-old mother of three, was one of about 18 contestants who tried to win a Nintendo Wii gaming console by determining how much water they could drink without going to the bathroom. The show's DJs called the contest "Hold your Wee for a Wii."

"Hey, Carter, is anybody dying in there?" a DJ asked during the show. "We got a guy who's just about to die," the other responded, and all the DJs laughed.

"I like that we laugh about that," another said.

"Make sure he signs the release. ... Get the insurance on that, please."

Strange participated in the contest during the morning in the studio and was found dead that afternoon. The county coroner said preliminary autopsy findings indicate she died of water intoxication.

Other contestants said Strange may have ingested as much as two gallons of water. Several hours into the contest, Strange was interviewed on the air and complained that her head hurt.

"They keep telling me that it's the water. That it will tell my head to hurt and then it will make me puke," she said.

Strange won the second-place prize, tickets to a Justin Timberlake concert. She commented on the tape that she looked pregnant, and a female DJ agreed.

"Oh, my gosh, look at that belly. That's full of water. ... Come on over, Jennifer, you OK?" the DJ asked. "You going to pass out right now? Too much water?"

On Tuesday, KDND's parent company, Entercom/Sacramento, fired 10 employees connected to the contest, including three morning disc jockeys. The company also took the morning show off the air.

Station spokesman Charles Sipkins said Wednesday that the company had not yet heard from the sheriff's department but that it would cooperate with the investigation.

Attorneys for the Strange family said Wednesday they plan to file a wrongful death lawsuit against the radio station.

Update:

A criminal investigation has been opened and there is a possibility of charges being filed.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6164325.html

Good. I think the DJs are guilty of negligent involuntary manslaughter. They should at least be fined or SOMETHING for their utter disregard of the health of the contestants and the warnings by the nurse.

Did her kids get a Wii anyway? Would be a shame to lose their mother and not at least get a game console.


Ok, I may be going to hell now.

stupid contest.

really stupid contestant. are you suggesting that she has no liability for the stupid decision she made to continue after warnings were given?

With God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly.

How frustrating/sad would it be for that poor nurse that called in? She's actually concerned... and knows how dangerous it is... tries to help and gets laughed at by the DJs...

And then she was right....

What a bum deal...

Not when they are frozen. :)

I think she paid the price, don't you? I agree that the station/employees should be charged with something. They obviously knowingly put people into harm's way, and someone died as a result.

Of course she did. But then she wasn't the only one who was endangered. It was whomever was in the contest and continuing after the DJs were notified of the possible dangers. THEY were the ones in charge of the contest. It was THEIR responsibility to ensure the safety of the participants or CANCEL their promo after they became aware of the danger.

They'll be able to buy them by the truckload after a few court appearances.... :hmmm:

I have one word for you


"Sling-shot"


:hmmm:

I don't think you believe that. I think if you were a contestant one of two things would have happened.
1) pissed your pants before you became ill
2) smart enough to know when to stop

I might even give you enough credit to be too smart to enter.

I can't buy that people will do what ever for a lousy $250.00 item.
I also can't buy that the average dumb ass is dumb enough to let a dumb ass disc jockey been in control of their health/safety.

I'm not a legal expert but I guess it could be involuntary manslaughter. There was no intent to harm, but the DJs knew the dangers of the situation and paid no regard for them, resulting in death. I'm not sure how the "she should have known better" factor comes into play.

If she signed a release though, I don't know how the children would have any recourse to collect damages in a civil action.

IMO, the stupid is split 50/50 here, between the DJs ignoring the warnings and the woman who risked her life and her 3 childrens' welfare for a Nintendo.

When you are asked to sign a release you know something you are doing can be harmful.......It's a stupid contest but you should also be smart enough to not participate in things that can kill you.

All the contestants heard the callers and discussions about how to much water can kill you, they continued on.

Sure the DJ's should get some blame but the woman who died also takes some for going on despite knowing what could happen.

I wouldn't enter because I intentionally do not give my kids the newest gadgets from the video gaming industry (racket) on principle...

But these folks are no different than those who camp out for HOURS in freezing conditions to buy their kids one of these systems on Black Friday. Or who buy them for 100%+ markup on Ebay. Or who trample over others running through the stores to pick up one for their brats waiting at home...

the point is there ARE a NUMBER OF PEOPLE out there who will do something foolish, ANYTHING, in order to get their hands on one of these systems so they can either feel better about themselves or delude themselves into thinking their kids will feel better about them.

The radio station KNOWS this and that is why they can sponsor a constest that is so demeaning and dangerous and have people actually try to win a spot in the contest. Afterall, compared to spending thousands on Ebay for this system, drinking ALOT of water sounds EASY.

The point is, BOTH parties, the contestants AND the station, were wrong in they had motives that were selfish. In the end, one woman paid for it with her life and her kids paid an even higher price for something that in a year or two will be worth $100 because the newest must have gadget will have replaced it.

It's an outrageous commentary on the values/lack of we have in our society.

Hey can you apportion 50% of the blame to her yet not acknowledge that she should have known it wasn't a great idea? Seems a little contradictory to me.

Apparently the releases they signed said nothing of medical concerns. Only of promotional and marketing conditions.

I don't believe the releases matter as far as the criminal investigation is concerned anyway.

I agree, and I bet that mmsi does as well, that the lady was dumb and should have known better, but I don't think that absolves the radio station employees and in fact I think a criminal investigation is warranted.

Involuntary Manslaughter might be the right charge here.

NFW should there be ANY legal responsibility on the part of the radio station. You sign a waiver, it's over. Nobody forced anyone to do anything against their free-will.

The stupid is all on the contestant. Period. End of Story.

Even if the waiver was regarding publicity and marketing and NOT medical?

Then why isn't the store who allows people to line up, camp out, trample others etc. liable when someone gets injured?

.... I think the "brats" have stupid parents. Kids are the result of their up bringing. Before we sling at the kids, lets be sure we take the shots at the parents. By the way, just because your kids don't have a system, my guess is at one time or another someone thought they were brats.

Someone, me, has thought they were brats. Thank you. But they are a fraction of bratty than most of the kids out there. I think it is BECAUSE they have not been given their every desire.

And you are wrong, stores ARE liable for the safe conditions of their property. Just ask any store manager who has had someone fall or be injured in their store. It's a lucky day when that store manager doesn't see a doctor's bill or an attorney's letter.

She should have known better, but the radio station shouldn't have opened the gate to the pasture and let these intellectual cattle wander out onto the train tracks either.

Before you get the idea that you might think that I think kids every whim should be given into, don't. I agree to a pretty large extent of what you say about how you are raising your kids (at least as it pertains to the granting of every want).

Who is liable for laying on the sidewalk waiting in line for a system and the person laying there gets severe frost bite? Safe condition of property? Can't control the outside temp. What is the stores responsibility here?

That is right. You can't. Those are OUTSIDE conditions that are uncontrollable. I think your analogy is flawed. Introducing increasing amounts of water or stopping a contest IS a controllable.

I think a better comparison would be the Great White show. The management of the bar and the tour manager did not PLAN for indoor fireworks to create an inferno that would cost 100 people their lives. But one could assume that would be a POSSIBILITY and thus might take precautions to make certain that it did not happen. Likewise, those in attendance might see indoor fireworks and think 'this place could become a tinderbox.'

Perhaps I'm just old or maybe too anal but I'd be one of those watching the fireworks and looking to see where the exits were. Now, you could say the people who didn't look for exits or leave if they sensed danger were responsible for not knowing and thus responsible for their own deaths. BUT, those people in attendance also had a belief that the promoters had taken every necessary precaution to ensure the safety of their show BEFOREHAND. That assumption cost them their lives but it also cost those responsible prison time because they had NOT done what they should have.

The same could be said for the contest sponsors. The participants were there by choice. But they also had an assumption that the radio station would not intentionally sponsor something they knew would be life threatening. They also could assume that if there was a question about the safety that precautions were taken to ensure such concerns were addressed. Thus, they participated in the event under the belief, assumed, that the radio station sponsoring the event had the safety considerations covered.

Like those in Rhode Island, one lost her life because of the false assumption. Her assumption did/does not absolve from any liability the sponsors of the event.

I don't think my analogy is that flawed.
In both cases, the individual chooses. I choose to drink the water, I choose to freeze my arse off.

If I follow your analogy, it would appear that the stores should shoo customers away since they were endangering themselves and the store knew that they were endangering themselves.

To end this for me, I will agree that both have responsibility, but to put this more in the hands of the radio station would be unfair.
Part of what is wrong with society, is that no one has to take resonsibility for their actions if they can get some lawyer to deflect it elsewhere.
That is sad

one final note....maybe the real culprit in all of this is Nintendo?

And they'll come back to thank you for that someday. Most likely when you're sleeping.

The really sad thing is that the woman couldn't afford to buy a $300 video game for her kids and resorted to this to make them happy. To get her kids what they wanted for Christmas.

Sad.

I stood in two lines for a total of 6 hours, and the first time I was two too late, and the second time it wasn't even close.

That's as far as I would go. Now they can wait until next year. Maybe it will be cheaper, but they'll like it, or else.

A waiver doesn't ****ing matter. It's a criminal investigation.
I can sign a waiver that says I agree to let you shoot me in the face but if you do it you'll still go to prison.

Good analogy.

ever notice analogy is like the study of anal.

I damn near did the same thing years ago to beat a drug test. Did nothing but drink water all day, including pineapple juice and grapefruit juice. No food all day and night- nothing but liquids. By the time I took the test in the morning, I had flushed my entire body out...But, I was damn near comatose too. White as hell, shaking, and vomited all day long the next day.

But, hey, I passed the test. :D

It serves to illustrate the point that a waiver doesn't mean dick in a criminal matter, it's mostly a civil thing to ward off lawsuits.

For what? Allowing a bunch of idiots to be a bunch of idiots?

It's not like they told these people they'd be Ok, these people were told the could die and that other people HAD died from this. At one point this dumbass who died was on the ground and had to be picked up by someone else to continue, then after she drank MORE water she went home, despite having severe symptoms.

WTF? So every one of use should be fined for our participation in cadmonkey's stupidity?

In that case every bartender and cocktail waitress in the US is screwed.

YOU are so full of SHIT that its UNBELIEVABLE.

...and there is no possible way for us to protect people this stupid from even a fraction of the stupid thing they can do.

There is no way a waiver is going to keep a person/entity from getting sued for gross negligence.

I think that Entercom (the ownership in question) probably has a team of lawyers that could defend them (the company and the individuals) from a deep pockets law suit/jail term.

As usual, it will depend on the laws of the state of California.

However, just moving up and down the dial, you can see that Entercom hires some really horrific DJ's.

Who knows?

Sometimes stupidity is lethal.

I don't think it's fair to call this woman stupid for doing this. It's not common knowledge that drinking too much water will kill you. If they had asked her to drink drano, I doubt she would have done it. While she caused her own death by participating, so did the DJs by their negligent behavior. I know this isn't France, but do you know they have laws against not helping someone that you know is in harms way? IMO, that's a noble law and wouldn't allow ppl to get away with crap like this.

Do we know that the contestants were warned they could die before the contest started?

Do we know if they heard the callers saying they could die?

I haven't read too much about all that happened, but I haven't yet seen a definitive "yes" to either of those questions.

I know the answer to this question:
Are the DJs ****ing Sick Bastards for mocking comments about the potential for death, and thus, do they deserve more than being fired? Yes!


When Darrent Williams died, anyone that suggested(while not mocking), "hanging around thugs was a bad idea" was vilified and deemed totally heartless/disrespectful. I don't want to try to find who said what over the DW death, but ppls silence over the mocking of this woman's death says enough.

Well this goes under the heading when contest goes bad. They should of done it better.

Great post KChiefer from Chambana, i agree with every word of it. I cant begin to imagine the heartbreak of the 3 little kids either, sad beyond words.

The waiver this woman signed in no way absolves the radio station of legal responsibility. That sounds crazy but let me give you an example from the industry I work in.

A carpet company sells a job to an auto dealership, carpet to be installed in their very busy showroom. The carpet dealer urges the car dealership manager to buy a carpet designed for heavy traffic areas. The dealership manager has a budget to work with and the appropriate product is way over that budget. He opts for an inferior but lower priced item. He is advised against his choice but proceeds. When the order is written the carpet dealer makes multiple notations in the contract that the product is not recommended for the application.

Some time later the carpet looks like hell. The car dealer complains, the carpet dealer tells them to pound sand. The matter goes to court and the judge rules in favor of the car dealer. Why? Because the onus was on the carpet dealer as the expert in the matter. The carpet dealer, in that instance, should have walked away from the job according to the judge.

Opinion I - That waiver ain't gonna mean shit when it gets to court.

Opinion II - A radio station is a business and businesses are meant to make money. Causing illness or death to your customers (listeners) is probably a bad idea. No matter what you think about the dead woman, surely you'd admit that the manager of that station was asleep at the wheel. Part of a manager's job is keeping his company out of situations with potential liability, the manager of that station failed badly.