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

I hate listening to "experts" in this kind of stuff sound so ignorant.

Allegedly, the contestants were warned, and signed indemnification agreements. People should read what they sign. (I'd be bailing out a whole lot fewer mortgage deadbeats with my tax dollars if they would.) Competing for a free Wii is not exactly "providing for your children" material.

I wonder if any of these so-called experts ever had a how-long-can-you-hold-your-breath-under-water contest with their friends as kids.

It's alarming to me that it's still called common sense.

To me, if they didn't inform the contestants about the risks for Water Intoxication, they should definitely be held liable. As for the woman who spilled coffee, that actually wasn't as frivolous as most people think. If you're getting 3rd degree burns from coffee, it's not "duh, coffee is hot" hot. Coffee that hot would be dangerous to drink as well. They actually found the restaurant was holding the coffee hotter than McDonald's prescribed, so they wouldn't have to make new pots as frequently. McDonald's itself had internally agreed on a "safe" heat for coffee, and that one specific restaurant had exceeded it to a dangerous amount. I mean, everyone has spilled on themselves at some point, and I'd rather not get 3rd degree burns from it.

I don't recall any firearms being involved.

We're talking about how long they could go without taking a piss here. I can't believe this is even a discussion. This is what happens when people educated beyond their intelligence convince others of even less intelligence that still others are to blame for their misfortunes.

Anyone who thinks getting people to sign a piece of paper granting you permission to crush their skulls with a sledgehammer makes crushing their skulls with a sledgehammer legal and indemnifies you from liability is truly a "moran".

I disagree -- this is what happens when people who know better willingly take risks with other people's lives, hoping that what happened to others during their disastrous contests/hazing somehow won't happen to them. It's also what happens when the survivors of those people who die have enough money to proceed with filing charges against those willing to ignore their own 'common sense'.

Also, the filing papers say that she didn't sign any release of liabilty. I'd be interested to know if any release form came up during the trial, though.

New Age Retro Hippie, something tells me you're not all about taking personal responsiility. I can't quiiiiite put my finger on it, New Age Retro Hippe, but I'll keep looking. I promise you, New Age Retro Hippie, I will.

Firstly, my arguments are predicated on there being Informed consent among the contestants.
Secondly, one can not equate gunshots and sledgehammers to the head with drinking water. The former will most assuredly end in extreme disfigurement or death, while the latter does not, otherwise, we would have seen a number of corpses equal to the number of contestants. With that, however, see my first point.
Thirdly, I am not trivializing her tragic death so much as you are what should be common sense.

EDIT: I'm reading the findings of the case now, and I'll be the first to tell you my belief that the DJs and the parent broadcast company should be held criminally negligent if either informed consent was not agreed, or medical assistance was withheld upon signs of contestants' distress.

The most likely scenario? Tell me, friend, where are the other corpses? This should look like Heaven's Gate, Part II if what you're saying is remotely accurate.

Common sense, duuuuuuuuuude.

But with that, please read my edit, above.

Everyone I know knows that drinking that much water is exceedingly dangerous. But then again, most everyone I know has at least a highschool diploma, meaing they took biology and learned this stuff 10+ (+ + +) years ago. This is my personal experience, and I do not presume that this will be everyone's. That is why I predicate my arguments on informed consent, meaningful informed consent, so as to give the contestants the info they need to understand the risk and recognize the warning signs. I understand that not everyone will know the risks from prior experience or education.

If the DJ's tried to obfuscate those risks or neglected addressing the warning signs, I say hang 'em.

Whether the DJ's, the Producer or the Station is responsible for the death or not, the compensation is way too high. I'm sure they're sad for their loss, but never mind. They're multi-millionaires now.

In Ireland I believe compensation (and lottery prizes for that matter) are capped, which stops people making such exorbitant legal claims. And in Britain, there isn't such a 'compensation culture'.

@edhe: That award was from the judge/jury combo. The family did not specify amounts in their filing.

Should I change "which stops people making such exorbitant legal claims" with "which stops courts awarding such exorbitant settlements"? I fail to see how the courts arrived at that conclusion...

I sympathise with the family totally, which might not have come across in the previous post, but that was on the understanding they specified that amount in their case.

[Also, Britain too is beginning to adopt the compensation culture - for several years now, Injury claim adverts (reminding people that if they trip and break their ankle, someone is DEFINITELY to blame) have sprung up on their televisions. It isn't just an American thing, although I doubt any court in Britain would award a family more that £200 000 for negligence. I'm probably wrong.]

@edhe: yes, that change would work. :3

Sometimes I wonder if the courts make decisions on amounts expecting the defendants to appeal down the line, though, so they award high knowing that it'll settle onto some mid-range number that they really feel is appropriate in the situation, but they don't want to just award that number because they know it'll have an appeal filed against it and be reduced further... i dunno. :/

Yes, never mind about the loss. Becasuse all of that money will bring the kids mother and the husbands wife back. I'm sure once they got the money they tossed the urn in the trash, yelled "F*ck Yeah!!" And tore off in new sports cars.

Regarding this whole case, it really doesn't matter about about anything other than proving liability. The radio station knew about the risk, which wasn't properly passed onto the contestants. This was compounded by the lack of monitering the contestants throughout. If a nurse had been circulating, checking vitals every 10 minutes or so and yanking anyone whom was in bad shape (like they should have) this could have been avoided. Guilt through inaction is just as bad as guilt through action in a case like this.

If there's a risk of the contest you're doing having even a small risk of killing someone, you damn well better have more than some vague waiver to cover yourself.

The time I heard this, I was amused, but then I realized how bad it was.....

16 mil...... and those DJs got fired.

At least now she can rest in peace.... with a Wii, I suppose.

I was being facetious. I hope you realise that.

I will not get into who is at fault here as it has already been discussed enough, I do agree however that the amount of money awarded to the family is extortionate. I understand there is no value for a life but as mentioned before there are plenty of people who lose family due to others negligence and they receive nothing or very little in the way of compensation. Why should the circumstances a person died in, and the media coverage it receives affect the amount of compensation a family receives. There should be figures in place depending on the size of a family and the age of any dependants that determines the amount of compensation all family's should receive if they lose a loved one due to someone else's negligence.

Somebody stated before "How would you feel if it was your wife that had died", well it can also be said how would you feel if your wife had died and somebody else was at fault, and you received nothing in the way of compensation, and then you read this story.

She didn't even win the Wii. She came in second, and got a pair of Justin Timberlake tickets as a consolation prize. though i suppose they could buy a Wii with some of the money once they get their first installment...

So if there was an eating contest and someone died of choking, who's responsible? The person running the contest or the person who shoved too much food into their mouths?

This is what's wrong with our country today. Nobody wishes to take on reprocussions for their own actions. It's always someone elses fault. Man up people and realize that YOU ARE TO BLAME! If there's nobody forcing the issue guess what? You can always say NO!

I attended an eating contest when I was a kid. We had to eat a watermelon slice and whoever did it fastest won a $25 Toysrus gift card. I find it funny that if maybe I would've choked to death on some watermelon, maybe my mom could've sued the place for millions. Darn it!

Grey, we share the same sensibilities on the matter, but this particular case has some nuance insofar as water intoxication is a more subtle risk than choking. If one of those contestants in the Nathan's hotdog eating contest gets jammed up, then someone whacks him on the back, makes him toss his lunch and calls it a day.

With drinking so much water, there is a risk of toxicity that is not easily remedied before it's too late.

This is why my arguments earlier were predicated on the contestants' having knowledge and understanding of the risks and warning signs, and the availability of medical assistance should the onset of symptoms occur. If any of these were willfully withheld, then, yes, I believe strongly that the contest organizers are culpable. As for the monetary value of the damages, I leave that to the courts to decide, even I believe they are excessive.

Understood.

I still stick to my guns though.