Topic: So apparently the Hold Your Wii victim's family made 16 mil...

Yeah I dunno if it's my bagadouche side speaking or not, but was anyone else somewhat irate at this? Yeah, the radio station DJs were pretty awful human beings for even devising this contest. It was a huge medical risk--THAT SAID:

It had to have been sanctioned by someone.

The DJs were gung-ho about the contest cause they're DJs...they're paid to be gung ho.

The lady died--that's rough and I'm sure the family went through hell since. But the lady decided to not pee, felt like she needed to pee, ignored her biological urges, and died due to water intoxication....I don't see why that gets awarded 16.2 million dollars. If someone tells me to fast for 6 days to win a new car, I wouldn't hold someone else responsible if I starved to death, regardless of who the car was for. I just don't like the standard of "if someonething bad enough happens to you, you're set for life" - I'd prefer the standard of "read up on possible medical risks if a radio stunt seems potentially dangerous".

/dons flame-resistant armor

That is pretty dumb. I would never risk my life for something I wanted that badly. Society can be stupid sometimes.

wait, so they told the people to hold it in and win money? I coulsn't last

She chose to enter the contest and I am sure nobody held a gun to her head and forced her to. Its bad she died but at the same time her actions were the cause and her own neglect was the effect.

especially something material that could've been bought on ebay for double its retail price if it was truly needed that badly...tbh when I was a kid I had to save up the money for that type of thing anyway--mom would never be expected to compete in life-endangering events to win me videogame consoles--that's what meticulous saving of meager allowance is for.

The comp was that there were 12 or something people, and the person who held in their "wii" the lonest won a free Wii.

And @swerd_murd They deserve the money. 1. Compensation (The Dee Jays basicly took a life)

The Dee Jays did not take a life. It was a contest and I am sure she could of pulled out of it at anytime. No one held a gun to her head. They were her actions and she could of stopped at anytime. No offense to you but people nowadays need to start being responsible for their own actions instead of blaming everyone else.

^ See that's where you lose me....explain to me how the DJs took her life? As DHD said, no one held a gun to anyone's head...the held the key to a bathroom she could've requested at any time, but didn't.

Also, consider that most people's (when intentionally murdered) families don't make even a fraction of that. What makes her family deservant of such an absurdly large fee?

Good point. But what about people who die of say asbestos poisoning. Are you saying its there fault for working with a company who use asbestos?

The contest was a bad idea. The radio station should have read up on water and its possible detrimental effects on the body and stated such risks (if they did not already do so.)

HOWEVER: it is my firm belief that it is still the risk of the undertaker and thus the station should not be held financially or in any other means responsible for her death. My sympathies go out to her family, but its her own fault for neglecting her body.

They did not deserve compensation. What she did was basically like a suicide, she killed herself by choice.

^I actually said this first...OB just jacked my words, phrased them better, and posted it...first....

So, your saying that only one person can have "your" opinion.

nope I made a joke.

Thankfully at least people share mine.

I also use the correct form of your.

Letriplefayl.

Thanks you for that comment.

A. I had a feeling they were.

B. Ignorance isn't an excuse for anything.

C. Those frat brothers went to jail, they admitted wrongdoing, and that lady didn't get a dime from anyone. And btw they contacted the authorities, albeit late, and were all drunk. They were also in college; this lady is married w/ a kid. And the lady has since forgiven the kids (mother of the child) and speaks to them regularly in prison.

D. As I said, this is a DJ's job. And she was providing a Wii, not food. That's not providing, that's buckling under a whiny kid's constant complaints or buying a kid's happiness.

E. Water isn't poisonous, unless had in excess--in which case every liquid on the planet is poisonous. I could die from a lot less milk or Orange Juice.

If I'm not mistaken the DJs went to jail for some time.

D.

EDIT: I hate soapboxers assuming a long-winded post automatically wins an argument

@Swerd_Murd: you sound pretty bitter that other people were willing to participate in a radio contest to try and win something for their kid. That's all it was to them -- a radio contest. Who dies from one of those? According to the court documents, the contestants weren't notified about the dangers of water intoxication, nor that they could die from attempting to perform the 'hold your wee for a wii' stunt. A nurse even called in informing the defendants of the dangers of water intoxication and that the contest could wind up with someone dead, and their response was 'oh, they all signed release forms, so it's okay' (even though the lady who died, at the very least, had never signed one). Those guys didn't do their homework or consult a doctor before beginning the contest, nor did they bother to listen to the person/people warning them while the contest was underway; by continuing to egg the contestants on even while they were feeling unwell or in distress bladder-wise, it's serious negligence on their part.

If you're saying that you personally wouldn't have gone through with a lawsuit if your wife had done something so dangerous and died of it, that you feel it would've been her fault, great. Good for you. But that family didn't feel that way, and it's totally your bagadouche side talking when you say you're 'irate' that a family was awarded (insert sum here) by a judge and jury for the death of a loved one. Where do you draw the line? What do you feel is the monetary value of a wife and a mother of three? (note that the family did not specify any numbers in their complaint, either -- that number came from the judge and jury, not them.)

all that aside, that award will probably be whittled down by future reductions (as happens regularly in lawsuits with large monetary awards) and lawyer's fees, so even though they were awarded $16.2 million, they'll probably be lucky to see half of that, and in the meantime, that father has lost his wife and those kids will have to go through the rest of their lives without their mother. Money won't be able to replace that, but at the least the kids'll get to go to college and the finances won't be so tight on the husband (three kids are some serious baggage, there's no telling whether or not he'll be able to remarry before the kids are grown).

Second one, yeah. She spilled on herself. Don't know the first--we all go through life, encounter ****, pick up and have to work for the rest. I got a bit off-topic--I totally think the DJs deserved what they got and then some--I was clarifying motivations; again, study similar Sociological studies like that study (name escapes me) where people were randomly chosen as prisoners/prison guards and everyone ended up seriously playing the roles out despite not being violent people innately...the random guards mistreated/seriously abused the randomly chosen prisoners despite them all having equal probabilities of being on either side. People get caught up in the situation and make otherwise questionable (in this case very questionable) decisions; they deserve to be held accountable. My real "problem" is with people getting loaded when bad things happen, and it's not even a problem. The "irate"ness was simply that 16 mil = beyond set for life....probably not the best word choice though. Probably just jelousy... like I said, a lot of other people have had awful things happen to them and they didn't get a dime. I don't unwish their money, but it'd be nice if 2 mil had gone to 9 families that had been screwed by circumstance similarly.

You both made excellent counterpoints.

@NARH: which sum did you not agree with, the $2.86 million she was originally awarded, or the $640,000-some (compensatory and punitive total) it was reduced to by the judge, or the less-than-that otherwise-undisclosed amount they settled on afterward? Note that McDonalds absolutely refused to settle before the case went to trial (she had originally asked for $20,000 -- hindsight's 20/20, i guess).

In terms of that case, people tend to focus more on the original award (which is based on two days' worth of coffee sales at McDonalds, estimated at 1.35 million per day back then) than what she actually received, which was considerably less. They also tend to ignore the fact that the jury found her 20% responsible and McDonalds 80% responsible, and her award amounts were adjusted accordingly. Considering McDonalds only wanted to give her about $800 to cover her medical bills, which were more in the $11,000 range, and their flat refusal to settle pre-trial, they deserved what they got IMO.

@NARH: yeah, that sum was pretty arbitrary and obviously meant to punish the big bad corporation for being mean to/hurting the poor little lady. she didn't actually get that, though, which is where i got confused. :3