Water Intoxication...Sad Story

[Lathum]

Is anyone else tired of this argument?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Is anyone else tired of this argument?

Maybe if I could find a link to audio or video of the event, I can make my decision on the matter.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Rizon

There is quite a bit of stupidity involved in this situation, on ALL sides.

fixed.

[clintl]

Just a little update from the Sacramento Bee (print version today) referring to the waiver the contestants signed:

Several contestants interviewed by the Bee said they did not read it, but Gina Sherrod said she did. It dealt solely with publicity, not health and safety, she said.

The waiver was not going to protect the station legally anyway, but if there was nothing in the waiver about safety, then the station really is toast. They don't even have a defense of any kind.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by clintl

Just a little update from the Sacramento Bee (print version today) referring to the waiver the contestants signed:



The waiver was not going to protect the station legally anyway, but if there was nothing in the waiver about safety, then the station really is toast. They don't even have a defense of any kind.

*boom*

[st.cronin]

By the way, it's a myth that our society is very litigous. In 19th century America for example, the average person was sued more than once in his lifetime. We're not even close to that standard.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

By the way, it's a myth that our society is very litigous. In 19th century America for example, the average person was sued more than once in his lifetime. We're not even close to that standard.

Cool Then I've met my quota. That is a relief.

[stevew]

16 mil.
http://www.sacramentopress.com/headl...ento_Negligent

After nine days of intense deliberations, a jury of seven men and five women today rendered a verdict against a local Sacramento radio station in the civil trial of William A. Strange et al v. Entercom Sacramento LLC and Entercom Communications Inc. et al. The trial was to determine accountability for the death of Jennifer Strange, who died as a result of a water drinking contest sponsored by Entercom Sacramento's radio station KDND.

By unanimous vote, the jury decided that Entercom Sacramento was negligent in Strange's death; by unanimous vote, they also decided that the parent company, Entercom Communications of Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania was not responsible. By a vote of ten to two, the jury decided that Jennifer Strange did not contribute to her own death.

Economic damages were assessed at $1,477,118. Non-economic damages were assessed at $15,100,000.

Jurors said finding Entercom Sacramento negligent was a relatively simple decision, mostly because Entercom on-air employees ignored phone calls warning them of the dangers of the contest. They said they believed it was the responsibility of Entercom Sacramento to vet the contest with the parent company's legal department, which employees failed to do.

However, jurors reported that they were sharply divided over other issues in the case. They said no one thought Jennifer was 100 percent responsible for her death, but that two jurors thought she shared some responsibility. As only nine jurors had to agree to render a verdict, that issue was quickly decided. Deciding non-economic damages proved much more difficult, and took days of deliberations. According to juror LaTeshia Paggett, some jurors thought that criteria they'd been instructed to consider for compensation like love, companionship, and moral guidance were invaluable, and as such, the family should receive zero compensation for those areas. She said other jurors disagreed sharply and felt the compensation should have been as high as $48 million dollars. In the end, according to juror Tammy Elliott, the jury agreed to averaging the dollar amount each juror felt appropriate. "Each juror's number was weighted equally," Elliott said.

According to Entercom's annual report, Entercom Communications reports a 2008 revenue of $439 million; Sacramento is one of their more profitable markets.

The FCC is still investigating the incident.

[molson]

Entercom should help out the family, but I never understood massive civil awards like this.

It must be so strange. Your family member is dead, but now you're a multi-millionare. Sure, you'd rather have the family member back (in most instances), but why do you deserve or need all that money? What is the connection between the money and a bunch of people acting like idiots one sad morning.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by molson

Entercom should help out the family, but I never understood massive civil awards like this.

It must be so strange. Your family member is dead, but now you're a multi-millionare. Sure, you'd rather have the family member back (in most instances), but why do you deserve or need all that money? What is the connection between the money and a bunch of people acting like idiots one sad morning.

I find it difficult to understand as well... but I guess it all boils down to how the jury is able quantify the loss of a loved one?

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by molson

Entercom should help out the family, but I never understood massive civil awards like this.

It must be so strange. Your family member is dead, but now you're a multi-millionare. Sure, you'd rather have the family member back (in most instances), but why do you deserve or need all that money? What is the connection between the money and a bunch of people acting like idiots one sad morning.

You want to hurt the people responsible in some way is the best I can imagine.

Did they force the water down her throat or merely encourage her to do so herself, which she then did? I do not understand the conclusion that she did not contribute to her own death.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Samdari

I do not understand the conclusion that she did not contribute to her own death.

That's simple, she was a halfwit taken advantage of by an evil corporation and they must be punished.

edit to add: That's probably too wordy. I could have stopped with "the accused was a corporation", the rest just flowed naturally.

[larrymcg421]

If it was alchohol intoxication or something like that, then they'd vote that she was responsible, but the water intoxication is not something that most people would expect to kill you. I certainly didn't know about it until I read the story.

[JPhillips]

That award will be seriously reduced on appeal. They almost always are.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That's simple, she was a halfwit taken advantage of by an evil corporation and they must be punished.

edit to add: That's probably too wordy. I could have stopped with "the accused was a corporation", the rest just flowed naturally.

I actually understand holding them responsible somewhat. But to say she made NO contribution to her own death is absurd.

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

If it was alchohol intoxication or something like that, then they'd vote that she was responsible, but the water intoxication is not something that most people would expect to kill you. I certainly didn't know about it until I read the story.

But SHE did something dangerous, on the advice of two disc jockeys. SHE made the decision to do that, not them.

By willfully pouring the water down her own throat, she contributed to her own death. I don't even see how the opposite conclusion is reached.

[RedKingGold]

Money is the best we can do when someone screws up.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

I find it difficult to understand as well... but I guess it all boils down to how the jury is able quantify the loss of a loved one?

It was a civil trial, so jail time for those held responsible was not an option. What's the next best punishment? Hitting those responsible in the pocketbook. I seriously doubt the family went into this trial with the goal of getting rich - they were most likely primarily motivated to punish the radio station and let the verdict serve as a warning to others that consider holding what could be dangerous contests.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

It was a civil trial, so jail time for those held responsible was not an option. What's the next best punishment? Hitting those responsible in the pocketbook. I seriously doubt the family went into this trial with the goal of getting rich - they were most likely primarily motivated to punish the radio station and let the verdict serve as a warning to others that consider holding what could be dangerous contests.

It's an interesting situation when comparing awards for court cases. My mother-in-law became ill becaue of a drug that had deadly side effects. The company set aside a fund for lawsuit settlements. The award pool was divided up based on impact on life. My mother-in-law was one of the worst situations that lived, so she received $6M. However, much of that money was consumed in caring for her over the 8 years that she lived afterwards. So it's not like we benefitted all that much. The award just kept us from having to pay out of our own bank account for someone else's negligence.

The people who had relatives that died received more than $6M. Granted, they were instant multi-millionaires, but I'd guess that every one of them would give it back to have their loved ones back. In the end, the large settlements were done because they had to do so and the victims had little choice but to take what was given or fight a legal fight for years and years.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Granted, they were instant multi-millionaires, but I'd guess that every one of them would give it back to have their loved ones back.

Probably, but on the other hand, if I had a family, and I could die of water intoxication and have my family set for life for generations, I'd do it.

It's just weird. Do these people move to Malibu, buy yachts, have butlers? How can they accept such a lifestyle knowing that it came from the death of their relative?

If we feel we must punish someone when someone dies as the result of negligence, OK, but how does it follow that the family of the victim needs to grossly profit? If a corporation is truly negligent and causes a death, maybe the punitive damages should go to the court/state so it can better compensate actual economic losses of other victims that so often go unfulfilled.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by molson

Probably, but on the other hand, if I had a family, and I could die of water intoxication and have my family set for life for generations, I'd do it.

It's just weird. Do these people move to Malibu, buy yachts, have butlers? How can they accept such a lifestyle knowing that it came from the death of their relative?

If we feel we must punish someone when someone dies as the result of negligence, OK, but how does it follow that the family of the victim needs to grossly profit? If a corporation is truly negligent and causes a death, maybe the punitive damages should go to the court/state so it can better compensate actual economic losses of other victims that so often go unfulfilled.

That's dangerous, because then the state has a vested interest in the plaintiff winning. We've all seen small cities that need the funding from speeding tickets so they jack a speed limit down a bunch, set up a trap, and then don't catch locals they know. They have a vested interest. I don;t want to see what a state that was able to secure millions and millions each year would do.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

That's dangerous, because then the state has a vested interest in the plaintiff winning. We've all seen small cities that need the funding from speeding tickets so they jack a speed limit down a bunch, set up a trap, and then don't catch locals they know. They have a vested interest. I don;t want to see what a state that was able to secure millions and millions each year would do.

Good point. I guess I would envision punitive damages going into a restitution/unpaid civil judgment fund, that would distribute it to legitimate victims of crime and negligence that have gone uncompenstated for their actual losses.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by molson

It's just weird. Do these people move to Malibu, buy yachts, have butlers? How can they accept such a lifestyle knowing that it came from the death of their relative?

It wouldn't surprise me if many of those families end up giving away that money to charities or set up foundations and organizations to publicize whatever negligence it was that killed/harmed their loved ones to try to prevent it from happening again.

I'm not going to say that some of them don't embrace a new luxurious lifestyle, but I doubt it's a majority.

[sabotai]

Is money awarded to someone through a lawsuit treated as income? Or do they get the whole thing tax-free?

[stevew]

I don't really like how they averaged everyone's idea of punitive damages to come up with the award. The economic damages are probably as simple as calculating her income over remaining earning years factoring for inflating.