From last Thursday Sacramento Bee:
A Sacramento Superior Court jury awarded the survivors of Jennifer Lea Strange $16,577,118 as a result of her death nearly three years ago in a water-drinking contest conducted by a local radio station.
In making the award, the seven-man, five-woman panel voted unanimously to find that Entercom Sacramento LLC, the local subsidiary of Entercom Communications Corp. of Philadelphia was negligent in putting on the contest that ultimately resulted in Strange's death.The jury, also unanimously, exonerated the parent company.Jurors also voted 10-2 that there was no contributory negligence on Strange's part.
It's the last sentence in that excerpt that I want to address.
The jury decision was announced last Thursday, making national news. You may have heard reports. You may even recall the story when it first began in January of 2007.
Jennifer Strange family (Sac Bee)
The radio station, KDND, known as The End because of its dial position (107.9), ran a contest on its morning show, the Morning Rave. The Wii had been the hot toy that Christmas and it's likely the three on-air hosts were unable to acquire one until after the holiday rush. Since stores ran out, lots of consumers couldn't get one, either, so giving it away in January seemed like a great idea.
The contest: Keep drinking water at regular intervals. Whoever lasts the longest without peeing wins the prize. This is not a new contest; it'd been done countless times by many morning shows over the past 25 years. No one ever died. The Wii provided the morning show with a new spin on an old bit: Wee for a Wii. It's standard fare on music morning shows.
After Jennifer Strange's death, the three jocks and seven other staffers were fired, including the station's manager, known as a program director, the promotions director and the morning show's producer. The lawsuits followed and you now know the result.
Essentially, the case centered around just how commonly well known is it that you can die from drinking too much water. Certainly, the contestants didn't know, or they wouldn't have participated (and the station had to turn people away who wanted to participate). No one at the radio station knew, having based their assumptions on over two decades of past success with the contest by other morning shows nationwide. The contest always went without a hitch.
Placing blame
Now here's what's interesting: Readers are blaming the woman who died. Here's a representative sampling of reader comments from the newspaper's online version of the story:
I don't think they should receive a huge monetary award for the stupid actions of one family member. She saw others throwing up. She was an adult and should have known that when others were getting sick that she was just as likely to do the same thing. Where was her common sense? No one forced her to keep on drinking. This country needs to return to the days when we used COMMON SENSE and were responsible for our own actions. Everyone is looking for someone to sue and someone else to blame. I'm sad to say, we are becoming a country of idiots!She voluntarily made the decision, and paid the ultimate price. Greed from the lawyers to even think of persuing this case....case dismissed would be my decision,too. How can you hold someone else responsible for someone elses actions??????????? SHE KNEW! SHE DID IT! I thought WE were held for our OWN ACTIONS??????She died because of her own poor choice. Tragic - yes, but not anybody's fault but her own. This was a suicide - involuntary, but still a suicide.The Radio station did not kill this woman. Her actions did. As ill advised as the contest was, the radion station isnt liable for peoples choices.my goodness! this is so stupid!!! they didn't force her to drink the water! Im sure she had symptoms while she was drinking and holding her wee. But she chose to keep going with the contest! what is wrong with these people!?!?Welcome once again to the land of zero personal accountability. While it is tragic this woman died, she did so as a direct result of her own actions. Her desire to win a video game outweighed her survival instinct. The travesty here is that an award was granted. Come on, California, realize that you and you alone are responsible for those actions that occur to you that you have direct control over. This is ridiculous.This is just soooo idiotic!!! Are we not responsible for ourselves? Whats next?? Is the family of the idiot Strange going to sue Arrowhead because they were the ones who sold the radio station the water? They should be forced to put a Surgeon Generals warning on each bottle of water they produce. WHAT A JOKE! This family is wasting OUR money by pursuing this "justice" they speak of. This is just like the whole "the coffee was too hot" case. They are just embarassing her memory even more!!! They should lose this and be responsible for compensating this enitre state for their waste of it's time.Wow! nothing ever has to be my fault again! I can go drink and drive and when I get pulled over I'll just sue the bar that poured me the drinks, sue the alcohol company that made the drink, sue the glass company the made the glass I drank from, and then sue the cops for pulling me over. What a great country!!!!!I have to stop reading these stories about frivolous lawsuits like this. Its bad for my blood pressure. I guess people can be as stupid and irresponsible as they want, and get PAID for it.Are there any personal responsibilities in this country anymore? No one disputes this was a tragedy, but she was a willing participant. She was not forced to drink anything.
The most popular comment:
I too am praying that it will be dismissed! We need to get back to a place where people take responsibility for their choices and their own actions. I want my children to NOT learn to point the finger to find fault somewhere else.
I could go on.
Some of the criticism seems to stem from a belief that the amount of the award --the $16.6 million-- was way too much, and some of those opinions you see a hostile (and understandable) attitude towards frivolous lawsuits and talk of tort reform. Maybe that sentiment is driving the notion that this is all somehow the contestant's fault.
A YouTube video made just days after Jennifer Strange's death, with audio from the morning broadcast in question to give you idea of what transpired.
There's raw audio here.
Who is at fault?
I don't see how Jennifer Strange gets much blame here, and certainly not the kind of blame these readers are insisting upon --and this is a prevailing view. How do you prattle on about personal responsibility while excusing the radio station from their personal responsibility?
I'm guessing the jury found it hard to believe that any of those contestants would have participated in the stunt if they knew it could have resulted in their death. Does anyone believe the contestants would've taken such a risk? If you can prove that in court, then maybe you have an argument about Jennifer Strange being accountable for her own actions. Otherwise, I think not.
Where the DJs failed was on the air in their reckless dismissal of a warning that came directly from a nurse who called in and warned that "people can die from drinking too much water." The response of one of the co-hosts was that the contestants signed waivers so "we're not responsible." An air talent went for a punchline when he should've stopped in his tracks and stopped the contest. When the female member of the team says, "Maybe we should've researched this more," and a caller warns that this is something from which people can die, you can't later testify that you'd never heard of water intoxification. What do you mean you'd never heard of it? You just had a nurse tell you about it.
The contestants never heard that exchange between the caller and the DJs. They were in a separate room, unable to hear the radio broadcast.
Is Jennifer Strange at fault?
Is management liable? Is the company liable? I think so because they took a risk in the hirings they made. They hired people on good faith and maybe they should've done better research on those employees to ensure they weren't hiring a bunch of cowboys. That might not be fair, that's the deal. If someone calls and says a person can die from a contest you're doing, the first words out of your employee's mouth should be "how?" "How can they die?" At that point, if you don't stop the contest, that presents a problem in a court of law, and these guys didn't even ask the question, suggesting that they weren't interested in the possibility of a death, let alone the inevitability of it happening. They controlled the scenario here.
Or do you disagree? Do you think the victim is at fault? Is the judgment too high? The attorneys asked for between $34 and 44 million, so the judgment is not even half that. I don't know if that's fair or not, but I think the comments by Sac Bee readers are way off base, don't you?
If you'll forgive a point of personal privilege, I'll shamelessly plug this op-ed in the Sac Bee, which suggests that there's a wider net to cast when it comes to blame.
Comments
In contests and promotions that do stupid things they usually get the contestants to sign a liability waiver. Was this done and if so why can this woman sue anybody? If the station players didn't get the waiver, then they all deserve to be fired and the lady deserves to get paid what she can get for her family. She won't be spending the money anytime soon. It's the least we can do for their loss.
How low has our society sunk when you even ask the question of who is at fault. When times were more moral and stable there would be no question of who is at fault. We all make choices and they are your own, no one else is to blame.
Fed Up says: "How low has our society sunk when you even ask the question of who is at fault. When times were more moral and stable there would be no question of who is at fault. We all make choices and they are your own, no one else is to blame."
You don't think the radio station is at fault then?
Baco says: "In contests and promotions that do stupid things they usually get the contestants to sign a liability waiver. Was this done and if so why can this woman sue anybody?"
There were waivers, as is pointed out in the audio clips in the video. It's standard at most stations these days and has been for a number of years. I don't know anyone in radio that has much faith in them to protect you. But... radio employees also sign contracts and also have obligations to protect the company from damage. The cost to them when they don't is usually their jobs. In this particular case, can a waiver hold up considering the response of the DJs to the warning of the caller? If you knew that was going to be their attitude, how many contestants would sign on? Seems to me the lawyer has a good case from that point, regardless of whether there was a waiver, and regardless of what state it may have been signed in.
This kind of shock jock radio is old hat and only played in smaller markets like the radio station Brucie works at.
I would have to say that everyone is a little bit at fault here. I did not know that you could die from drinking too much water, but I do know that holding your urine in can cause damage. I think that's common knowledge.
I am so glad I rarely get up in the morning and when I do I listen to NPR. I expect nothing but stupidity from commercial radio and it sounds like morning radio is pretty bad.
But...just because someone calls in and *says* they are a nurse, a contest that has been held for over 25 years with no problems should be cancelled?
Maybe the stations should have checked with medical professionals over the past 25 years to be sure this contest was safe? That seems like common sense also.
What is the message to kids from this? No need to save money or wait to get what you want- enter silly contests (or buy lottery tickets etc.) Encounter trouble along the way? Lawsuit. Problem solved.
No work ethic or personal responsibility required.
How much blame does her husband receive/assume for allowing her to participate in a contest that would jeopardize her life?
By my last comment I did not mean to negate the familes personal tragedy and loss in any way. It's just that - personal and doesn't belong in a courtroom.
I don't believe in tort reform. I think there are many things that do belong in courtrooms. When companies and corporations knowingly endanger the public, ignoring the consequenses in favor of profit, that behavior should be prosecuted.
This just doesn't seem to be one of those cases.
There are religions where lawsuits such as this are against the religion. I remember being so surprised to learn that and surprised at how easily I had come to accept our litigious Anmerican society.
DRH says: "How much blame does her husband receive/assume for allowing her to participate in a contest that would jeopardize her life?"
That question assumes he knew it would jeopardize her life. Do you have any facts to bear out he had such knowledge? Did you know that drinking too much water could kill you? Do you think that's common knowledge? How do you explain the others who participated and the others who wanted to and were turned away.
Bubba says: "This kind of shock jock radio is old hat and only played in smaller markets like the radio station Brucie works at."
This kind of person thinks Bruce cares what Bubba thinks. Bubba would first have to say something worth thinking about. And it would also have to be accurate.
Tracy B Ann says: "...When companies and corporations knowingly endanger the public, ignoring the consequenses in favor of profit, that behavior should be prosecuted..."
No company would knowingly do so but even if they did, would that stop people from participating? The plethora of reality TV shows suggests that people are willing to do anything, if only for some limited degree of fame. And enough people watch to make it worthwile for those networks to continue producing reality shows. Who's really to blame?
Bruce says "No company would knowingly do so but even if they did, would that stop people from participating? The plethora of reality TV shows suggests that people are willing to do anything, if only for some limited degree of fame. And enough people watch to make it worthwile for those networks to continue producing reality shows. Who's really to blame?"
************************
Well, the tobacco companies certainly have (knowing chosen profit over possible danger to people) as has the pharmeceutical industry and automobile industry.
They did it in secret and many other companies continue to do so I am guessing. This radio station and it's employees hardly fall into the same category.
I admit I don't understand the fascination with these "reality" shows, but I think it is somehow related to my earlier comment on a lack of work ethic.
I'd like to see a reality show that deals with...well...real people and reality.
Tracy- Nashville Natural Pet Care and Training Examiner.
I said: "How much blame does her husband receive/assume for allowing her to participate in a contest that would jeopardize her life?"
Bruce said: "That question assumes he knew it would jeopardize her life. Do you have any facts to bear out he had such knowledge?"
Bruce's blog said: "Essentially, the case centered around just how commonly well known is it that you can die from drinking too much water... NO ONE AT THE RADIO STATION KNEW, having based their assumptions on over two decades of past success ..."
And yet, DRH, you would dismiss the call from the nurse warning that such a contest could kill the contestants? And you ignore the fact the contestants also are participating, yet you suggest it's the woman's fault (or the husband's) that she's dead?
How do you come to that conclusion?
Tracy says: "...I'd like to see a reality show that deals with...well...real people and reality..."
My guess is, TV execs would snidely remark that people aren't interested in real people and reality because they already deal with that in their own lives every day. I just find it amusing that people can sit in front of the TV and watch reality shows actually thinking that they're real and not staged for maximum possible entertainment value.
This is 2009 and no one is responsible for their own decisions! Who would suggest otherwise?
Accountable?? says: This is 2009 and no one is responsible for their own decisions! Who would suggest otherwise?
Who do you think should be held accountable?
Bruce, I dismiss nothing. A nurse (not A DOCTOR) called and the radio station continued with the game. How much research did the contestants do before they personally chose to participate. We've all heard that we should drink 8 full glasses of water a day.
It is a sad story and there is an awful lot of fault and blame to go around. However this does not justify a windfall payday when one's own ignorance is to blame as well.
KDND's Morning Rave DeeJays didn't tell the contestants, but they clearly knew someone could die from water intoxication; they made fun of Chico student Matthew Carrington's death just weeks before they sponsored this contest, and the first thing they said on the air that morning was "Can't somebody get water poisoning, and like, Die?" That was before the nurse's call. If you want to know the whole story, check out the live blog reporting at suewilsonreports (.com) . Much more to this story, take the time. Also see another video clip of the Jennifer Strange story in the film Broadcast Blues.
DRH says: "I dismiss nothing. A nurse (not A DOCTOR) called and the radio station continued with the game."
Meaning what, the advice is less credible?
"How much research did the contestants do before they personally chose to participate."
Why should they have to do any? Should we assume that anyone with influence and a public platform is out to do harm? Does that make Rush as bad as these DJs?
"We've all heard that we should drink 8 full glasses of water a day."
--Divide 64 ounces by 24 hours and you'll find the ratio to be quite different than 8 (and then 16) ounces ever quarter hour.
"However this does not justify a windfall payday when one's own ignorance is to blame as well."
--Not when you're told on-air that the contest is dangerous and they respond by saying, "not our problem; they signed waivers." They are completely culpable at that point. They could've stopped the contest. They didn't even tell the contestants about the nurse's warning and give them an option
An "alleged" nurse called in the show.
Tracy B Ann says: An "alleged" nurse called in the show.
True, she may not have been a nurse, but given the possibility and given the fact they knew someone had died from water intoxification from a fraternity hazing in a city just 90 miles north, that should have given them enough pause to check it out. Two clicks on Google and you've verified the warning of the person who called. Plus, in court testimony, it was revealed that other listeners who didn't get on the air warned the producer who. I can't recall what she did about that though she likely told the DJs during a commercial break. If she did, they obviously ignored her. She, too, was fired.
I said: "How much research did the contestants do before they personally chose to participate."
Bruce said: "Why should they have to do any?"
I am so glad that these people weren't asked to jump off a cliff. In Bruce's world it would not have been their fault
Typical stupid people. I think the Mother is just as bad as the radio station. I feel for the kids but it's about time that stupid people are held accountable for their own stupid actions. That goes for both.
All this for a toy. Just goes to show you that you need to do your homework before entering a stupid contest like this.
DRH says: I said: "How much research did the contestants do before they personally chose to participate." Bruce said: "Why should they have to do any?" I am so glad that these people weren't asked to jump off a cliff. In Bruce's world it would not have been their fault.
That's a ridiculous comparison. Ask a thousand people if they think jumping off a cliff will kill them. Then ask the same people if they'd ever heard of water intoxification. Then compare the numbers. You KNOW the discrepancy will be huge.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!