Idiot Drinks So Much Water She Dies

[This Guy]

Good point. Intern could be misconstrued as medical doctor, but I don't think it's commonly used that way by lay people in the U.S. I think most Americans understood it to mean Radio Intern, as you say.

I was afraid you were gonna yell at me about the OK Dave we get the point thing!

Doesn't make as much sense without the triple post being there:)

[JonnyFive]

I have a question - could the Nintendo corporation sue over this matter?

Well, they could sue. After all, I could sue you for looking at me funny. The real question is whether or not they could win anything.

I would think not. A negligence judgment (or any civil judgment, really) requires that some quantifiable damage be shown. I doubt very much that Nintendo could make a convincing case that their business or reputation was materially impacted by this.

[This Guy]

Well, they could sue. After all, I could sue you for looking at me funny. The real question is whether or not they could win anything.

I would think not. A negligence judgment (or any civil judgment, really) requires that some quantifiable damage be shown. I doubt very much that Nintendo could make a convincing case that their business or reputation was materially impacted by this.

I think Nintendo's chances for a successful lawsuit would depend on the wording of any agreements included in the package (those "the user agrees to these terms and conditions" things that most software includes).

I have no idea if Nintendo includes such conditions of use. But if they do, and if those conditions limit or forbid using their product for promotions (or stupid contest that kill people;)) then there could be a case.

The wording of those terms/conditions would, I think, determine the grounds and chances of success.

[JonnyFive]

I think Nintendo's chances for a successful lawsuit would depend on the wording of any agreements included in the package (those "the user agrees to these terms and conditions" things that most software includes).

I have no idea if Nintendo includes such conditions of use. But if they do, and if those conditions limit or forbid using their product for promotions (or stupid contest that kill people;)) then there could be a case.

The wording of those terms/conditions would, I think, determine the grounds and chances of success.

Unless Nintendo has included a very bizarre provision that you cannot sell their hardware or the included software, then I don't think there would be an issue here. Not only that, but I would think there would be legal issues if they tried to tell people that you couldn't resell the hardware.

Even if it covered software as well, the only included software is that Wii Sports game, and possibly whatever software is loaded onto the console's built-in memory (i.e. the console's "operating system").

Once you own the hardware, you can sell it, give it away, or throw it off a bridge (barring state dumping laws ;) ) if you want. If Nintendo tried to restrict the rights of an individual to transfer their private non-software property in such a way (even software transfer restriction would be a sticky issue), it would be without any legal precedent, and would probably result in legal troubles for Nintendo more than anyone else.

[Earthborn]

I think whether Nintendo can sue depends on how the radio station got the console. If Nintendo has been giving away consoles to media in order to have them promoted on air, then they may be able to sue because it reflects badly on them and they may have reasonably expected that a radio show would have plugged their product in a less distasteful and less deadly way.

On the other hand, if the radio station bought the console itself and did not intend the stunt as promotion of it, Nintendo will have a more difficult case. Perhaps it is still possible if they argue that listeners may have mistaken it for marketing by Nintendo and it reflects badly on them.

[JonnyFive]

I think whether Nintendo can sue depends on how the radio station got the console. If Nintendo has been giving away consoles to media in order to have them promoted on air, then they may be able to sue because it reflects badly on them and they may have reasonably expected that a radio show would have plugged their product in a less distasteful and less deadly way.

On the other hand, if the radio station bought the console itself and did not intend the stunt as promotion of it, Nintendo will have a more difficult case. Perhaps it is still possible if they argue that listeners may have mistaken it for marketing by Nintendo and it reflects badly on them.

Again, I think the thrust of it is whether or not there were measurable damages to Nintendo.

I have a feeling they won't bother to get involved with it. They have to pay their lawyers too, after all.

[Kaylee]

It appears that the attorneys for Jennifer Strange's family intends to sue Nintendo and the promoters for Justin Timberlake.

I don't know how Justin Timberlake was involved in this promotion so I can't speak about that.

In cable television ts common for corporations to do joint marketing. I assume that the same is true in radio. Also, American Radio also has the reputation of having slim profit margins (or at least they did when I last checked this out about 10 years ago, I doubt that has changed). Based on those two things -- its unlikely that the radio station bought the prize (the Wii) on their own to give away. Its much more likely that Nintendo and the radio station, or the parent company of the radio station, signed a contract to do joint marketing and that Nintendo either supplied the Wii or at least paid for part of it, and also helped pay for much of the marketing.

Usually the company paying for the marketing attaches samples of what was produced when they bill their partner company for their share of the "marketing campaign". So it will be difficult for Nintendo to prove that they did not know what the contest involved. Their contract most likely got fairly specific as to what the marketing would cover, and there was probably printed materials promoting the contest also. Again, I'm going based on my experience in cable television -- but I really doubt that they handle marketing that differently in radio.

Its business, and unless radio is completely different than cable, companies are not going to give each other that much publicity without any discussion as to who will do what, and what the advertising will involve, and then signing contracts that summarize their intent.

Without looking into this specifically but relying on generalities -- Nintendo would be an attractive target for a civil lawsuit and is more likely to have deeper pockets than the company owning the radio station. Particularly a radio station that may lose its license from the FCC (posted earlier in the thread the other day).


http://www.tssznews.com/
TSSZ has learned this evening through the way of KCRA-TV (http://www.kcra.com/video/10787907/index.html) that the attorney for the family of Jennifer Strange may expand a pending civil suit to include Nintendo as a named defendant.

Ms. Strange died of water intoxication after participating in KDND-FM’s Hold Your Wee for a Wii contest. She drank over a gallon of water and won a Wii for her children.


The Strange family attorney also intends to sue promoters for Justin Timberlake–their connection to the contest is unclear at this time.

[JonnyFive]

Well that one came out of left field. I think you're right about the deep pockets thing.

In this case, they'll have to show Nintendo (or Justin Timberlake's promoters) had some kind of responsibility. If they officially endorsed the contest, that might be a valid point. If not, I fail to see how Nintendo could be held liable for the woman's death. If they had no involvement with the contest, it would be akin to me killing someone over their TV and the family suing the television manufacturer.

As they used the Timberlake tickets to try and get her to stop, perhaps the promoters could claim they were actually trying to help save this woman.

[ponderingturtle]

It appears that the attorneys for Jennifer Strange's family intends to sue Nintendo and the promoters for Justin Timberlake.

I don't know how Justin Timberlake was involved in this promotion so I can't speak about that.

In cable television ts common for corporations to do joint marketing. I assume that the same is true in radio. Also, American Radio also has the reputation of having slim profit margins (or at least they did when I last checked this out about 10 years ago, I doubt that has changed). Based on those two things -- its unlikely that the radio station bought the prize (the Wii) on their own to give away. Its much more likely that Nintendo and the radio station, or the parent company of the radio station, signed a contract to do joint marketing and that Nintendo either supplied the Wii or at least paid for part of it, and also helped pay for much of the marketing.

I am not sure about the profit margions, but with all the consolidation going on in the radio market, there is a likelyhood that the station is owned by a large enough company to have real assets to go after.

How culpable nintendo is, well as you pointed out that depends on their connection to the event.

[dann]

The Central Scrutinizer, FarmallMTA & DanishDynamite have left the building!

[fuelair]

I noticed that sometime earlier - around the time that it came out that the studio had been warned but the contestants weren't to be exact. Not as honorable as apologising - but then given some of two of their posts on other threads, not surprising.

[ponderingturtle]

In case people missed it, there where no criminal charges in this case.

This would seem to be good news for reality shows they can be potentialy deadly in obvious ways to profeshionals and still be not liable.

[Ian Osborne]

In case people missed it, there where no criminal charges in this case.

Hell, got a link? I can't believe they got away with it. :(

[Cainkane1]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/13/water.intox.ap/index.html

Darwin at work.

This unfortunant lady may have had obsessive compulsive disorder. There was a young college girl at Emory University here in Atlanta who drank hugh amounts of water, often looking like she was pregnant. This doisorder began after her mother died of cancer and she was obsessed with the idea that water would flush the toxins out of own body. She contracted pneumonia and died in a hospital.

[ponderingturtle]

Hell, got a link? I can't believe they got away with it. :(

Dirrectly to a news source no. It was not such news that it seems to have been preserved well. I have wikipedia and blog sources

here (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/03/WATER.TMP") this looks like a news source.

"She knew what the contest involved when she entered it and had the option to stop or discontinue her participation in the contest at any time," said Scully, outlining how prosecutors contemplated -- and ultimately decided against -- filing charges of involuntary manslaughter.

"There were no observable indications or symptoms that Jennifer Strange was experiencing a serious medical emergency which would have required station employees to seek or administer medical aid to her," Scully said.


It would seem that being drunk from water is not enough of a clue, unlike this (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5012154) where the frat brothers where convicted in responce to killing someone by having them drink too much water.

[Matthew Best]

The family of a US woman who drank so much water in a contest run by a radio station that she died has received $16m (£9.7m) in compensation.

A California court found Sacramento radio station KDND-FM and its owner liable for the death in January 2007 of mother-of-three Jennifer Strange, 28.

She had taken part in a contest to see who could drink the most without going to the toilet, to win a Nintendo Wii.

She lost, and a few hours later died of acute water intoxication.

Story at BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8333197.stm)

[Brainster]

Well, now her family can buy a whole bunch of Wiis!

[dudalb]

Well, now her family can buy a whole bunch of Wiis!

#1 Story here in Sacramento for 2 days.
The woman was stupid, but I think the radio station deserves a smack down for being stupid enough to let a shock jock sponser a contest that had "lawsuit "written all over it. Frankly, a lot of these Shock Jocks seem to think the First Admendment gives them a licence to do just about anything, no matter how dangerous it might be. Say just about anything as long it is not one of the Seven words, yes, but do anything, no. If you do something as a Radio show Host that endangers other people or breaks Civil Law (diferent then FCC Regs) you have just jumped out from under the 1st Admendment cover.

[LibraryLady]

I moved this to Social Issues and Current Events, as it seems more applicable.

[Brainster]

#1 Story here in Sacramento for 2 days.
The woman was stupid, but I think the radio station deserves a smack down for being stupid enough to let a shock jock sponser a contest that had "lawsuit "written all over it. Frankly, a lot of these Shock Jocks seem to think the First Admendment gives them a licence to do just about anything, no matter how dangerous it might be. Say just about anything as long it is not one of the Seven words, yes, but do anything, no. If you do something as a Radio show Host that endangers other people or breaks Civil Law (diferent then FCC Regs) you have just jumped out from under the 1st Admendment cover.

Everybody in this case showed incredible stupidity.

[Careyp74]

Well, looking deeper into the story, the original contest was not supposed to be a drinking contest. They were supposed to only drink a liter of water each. When it was perceived that the contest would take too long, they started incrementing the amounts.

The woman who died was not necessarily stupid, if she knew how much water was going to be involved (no indication of a large amount from the original contest rules) she may have backed out. In the situation the way it presented itself, she was already vested in the contest, and was not made aware of any safety issues.

[dudalb]

Everybody in this case showed incredible stupidity.

I won't debate that.
What irritated me in this thread is those who while blasting the participant tried to let the radio station off the hook completly. I notice they left after the transcripts were posted showing how totally irresponsible the radio station was, laughing off a couple of callers, including a RN, who tried to warn them about the dangers.
The station deserved to get nailed.

[calebprime]

I miss JonnyFive,.

[Ferguson]

I won't debate that.
What irritated me in this thread is those who while blasting the participant tried to let the radio station off the hook completly. I notice they left after the transcripts were posted showing how totally irresponsible the radio station was, laughing off a couple of callers, including a RN, who tried to warn them about the dangers.
The station deserved to get nailed.

I agree completely. At first I didn't have much sympathy, as I still remember going over hyposalination in Health class in 6th grade, 9th grade, AND 11th grade, including reviewing cases of it happening, etc., and figured anyone willing to enter a dangerous contest deserves what they get, but the transcripts tells a very different story, including callous and ignorant DJ's misleading their listeners about the safety of the event.

[Puppycow]

I agree with the verdict.

[ponderingturtle]

#1 Story here in Sacramento for 2 days.
The woman was stupid, but I think the radio station deserves a smack down for being stupid enough to let a shock jock sponser a contest that had "lawsuit "written all over it. Frankly, a lot of these Shock Jocks seem to think the First Admendment gives them a licence to do just about anything, no matter how dangerous it might be. Say just about anything as long it is not one of the Seven words, yes, but do anything, no. If you do something as a Radio show Host that endangers other people or breaks Civil Law (diferent then FCC Regs) you have just jumped out from under the 1st Admendment cover.

Why was she stupid? It seems very few people understand the dangers of Hyponatremia, and the people who saw that she had altered mental status from water, deciding not to do anything about it is worse. Altered mental status is always dangerous unless you have a clear cause.

I am annoyed at the lack of criminal charges.

[applecorped]

I wouldn't call the deceased stupid.

[Cainkane1]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/13/water.intox.ap/index.html

Darwin at work.
She may have had obsessive compulsive disorder. A woman at Emory University here in georgia USA started drinking water after her mother died of cancer and eventually died of pneumonia even though the doctors frantically tried to save her. She had so much water in her tissues that she looked obese.

[Lisa Simpson]

She may have had obsessive compulsive disorder. A woman at Emory University here in georgia USA started drinking water after her mother died of cancer and eventually died of pneumonia even though the doctors frantically tried to save her. She had so much water in her tissues that she looked obese.

Obsessive compulsive disorder? She was trying to win a Wii. OCD had nothing to do with it.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I wouldn't call the deceased stupid.

She wouldn't hear you anyhow.

[applecorped]

She wouldn't hear you anyhow.

:wickedwit