Replies

Would the sponsor of a marathon be held for murder if a person who runs has a heart attack because of overexertion?

Most conservatives rightly laugh when juries grant millions of dollars to people who burn themselves on their hot coffee.

Why is this any different? They didn't make the woman drink water, they had no idea drinking water could kill you, they had no reason to believe that drinking a bunch of water would do anything but make someone have to go to the bathroom.

Why should the station be monetarily culpable?

Maybe I wasn't clear -- I think the guys should have been fired, I think the station should apologize. I just don't believe people should be criminally or civilly liable for actions freely taken by others when they had no knowledge of risk.

Suppose you gave someone a cookie, and they ate it -- and died on the spot. You found out they had peanut allergies. Their relatives sue you for a million bucks. Should you have to pay?

Water poisoning is somewhat like peanut allergies, in that it does effect different people different ways. Some people drink gallons of water with no effect. If you've ever worked out, you might have drank gallons of water. If one of the guys at the station was a runner, they could well have drunk a lot more water than this woman did, and had no reason to think it was dangerous -- even though if they were smart they would know that when working out you are sweating and need to drink water.

This is a tragedy, to be sure, and the contest was juvenile (as most are), but I bet if I had taken a poll on FR a week ago about this, with no comment, over half the people here would have had no idea that the contest put anybody's lives in danger.

I don't care where the water was given. I suppose we do blame bars for giving people too much to drink, but then they are selling the liquor, the dangers are known, and the liability is spelled out for them. You think that if you go to a restaurant and ask them to keep bringing you pitchers of water, at some point the waiter is going to tell you that you need to stop drinking because you might kill yourself? If they don't, and you die, you think you can sue the restaurant for serving you too much water?

I suppose the station could have asked a doctor about the risks. Then again, the woman could have asked a doctor about the risks.

Now, as to whether the station "IS" toast, I suppose that's a different question -- I took the comment to mean that people agreed the station DESERVED to be toast. But as to whether they might be sued even though they shouldn't be, that is where those other factors come into play.

But as to what SHOULD happen, the standard should be what a reasonable person would or should know, and frankly I think it's clear that a reasonable person would NOT have known that drinking two gallons of water could be fatal.

"they had no idea drinking water could kill you, they had no reason to believe that drinking a bunch of water would do anything but make someone have to go to the bathroom"

Wrong... look up the long history at universities having greek pledges die from exactly this thing as a hazing ritual, not to mention the other area of use asa torture method. If they did not consult a physician or an attorney prior to having this event, they need to be sued into bankruptcy. This information is not a secret and even if the DJs were idiots, the management should have easily researched and nixed the event.