Posted on 01/17/2007 7:32:59 PM PST by NormsRevenge
If she could have only shared 50/50 with Terri Schiavo.
No, because I can think for myself.
Do you think we, who can think for ourselves, have any obligation to assist or protect others who are less fortunate? If you saw a dumb person about to be persuaded to do something dangerous do you have any moral obligation to warn them about it?
So, if she signed a release, the station is still liable?
I see NO difference between this and the McDonalds case. You can see the jockeying for cash now, with supposed personal responsibility types even saying her family should sue.
28 years old is an ADULT, a concept foreign to the majority of the US and maybe the planet nowadays. She made a decision to participate in a stupid contest. She was not forced or held captive in any way. She chose poorly.
Am I the only one who thinks the whole thing was stupid, but not criminal ?
Everyone of these guys who put her up to it was an adult too. Whatever fault she had --- and it's not much in my opinion, since the crap she was told by them poo-pooed the consequences --- she paid over and above it with her life. That's something these people can't even hope to match, though their fault was far worse than hers.
If the station knew, or should have known, that the stunt could lead to injury or death, then yes, in my opnion they are liable.
I belong to a canoeing association where I have volunteered to lead trips; every paddler signs a release. Yet it is tradition in this group for the leader to evaluate each paddler and not allow paddlers to join the group if their inexperience or medical conditions could lead to injury or death. As a leader with knowledge of what is required I believe it would be negligent to allow an unsafe paddler to join just because they signed a release.
I guess it boils down to whether or not you believe that we are our brother's keeper?
Apparently just you and me.
Probably will be no crime charged, but a nice JUICY civil suit will succeed.
Show me where they used actual FORCE and I will agree with you, otherwise you're just projecting.
The radio station. They are running a business, and decided that they could make money off of people doing something so dangerous that outsiders were calling them warning it could kill contestants - and they laughed off the warnings.
It would be analogous to a car race being put on by a TV network, and contestants were told they could just use their commuting cars, not wear helmets, and that their bumpers would protect them in the event of a crash. And then run the race at high speed.
But the hosts twice gave the woman an opportunity to get out of the contest by offering her tickets to some concert- she refused the first time and accepted the second- but even then suggested she could still go on if they helped her.
You don't have to grab a bottle of something and force it down someone's throat to be culpable if they die because of it. If you set the situation up, encourage them to do it despite knowing the risks, tell them things about it that are misleading, and blow off people who warn you about the danger you are putting these people in, you don't have a leg to stand on either morally or legally. These radio station people are going to find out a lot about personal responsibility in the coming months -- and they'll find that theirs is a hard thing to duck.
Sheriffs don't investigate for civil damages, only criminal. There was going to be no investigation until the tape was released, suddenly the sheriff is investigating?
The DJ's were insensitive adolescent boors .. aren't most morning radio show hosts? When I listen to the am commuter hour talk radio, they all laugh at the stupidest things .. which is supposed to get people off on an "up" for their workday. Still, I'd be surprised if the DJ's had any more clue about how dangerous it really was than did Mrs. Strange.
I can't imagine the release Mrs. Strange signed didn't have language about participation in the contest possibly being dangerous, leading to injury or death. That's boilerplate.
Not that it isn't tragic, it is. Establishing legal liability is quite another story. The station owners will probably pay something to the family just to forestall a suit. But why can't families wait to bury their dead before talking about suing a person or entity seen as having deep pockets?
Bury, or pour into the ground?
A Wii for the family would be a just compensation
Her family didn't sign releases so they can sue. She'd have a tougher go of it herself, but that's a moot point.
these things are usually binding on "heirs and assigns"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.