Replies

OK. Suppose you buy a ticket to a show where a motorcyclist is going to jump 16 buses. When he gets to the top of the ramp, he looks like he's going to chicken out, so you stand up and chant "you can do it, do it, do it". Your neighbor is yelling "don't do it, it's not worth it", and you and those around them chant louder to drown out their warnings.

He drives back, takes off, lands on the 16th bus and dies.

Are you liable? You PAID him to do something so dangerous that you knew he could die, and then you encouraged him to go on with it, yelled that they could accomplish the task when they couldn't, and dismissed and blocked those who were trying to warn him not to go.

BTW, I think the reason they joked about dying was because they were convinced you couldn't die from drinking a little water. They knew about the college kid, but said they didn't believe the story, that there was probably drugs involved but it was being white-washed.

Their joking was entirely consistant with people who had HEARD something, but didn't believe it, and wanted to make fun of it. I don't think they believed it was possible for a person to VOLUNTARILY INGEST enough water to kill them. They thought if it was dangerous, the contestants would throw up, and they had warned the contestants of that.

However, I have come to the conclusion that they were negligent, if only because they knew enough to at least get a professional opinion, and it sounds like their advice, while being believed by them (making them not deliberately negligent) could easily have been construed as having been INFORMED ADVICE, when in fact they hadn't been informed at all.

In the case of pros engaged in dangerous activity, like stuntmen or boxers or NASCAR drivers, I suppose they're presumed to know fully the risks they engage in, and if some liability is involved in an accident it would probably be because someone created a risk that could not be reasonably known by the daredevil...... say, in the motorcycle case, by the promoter putting the buses at a wrong distance from each other, or putting up a faulty ramp. I think; I do not claim to be an expert.

But the case here isn't that murky, is it? The radio guys, with the full weight and medical and legal expertise of a corporation behind them, set up a contest in which they took people off the street and put their health in serious danger. No medical personnel were provided; it seems from what I've read that they didn't even give these people a ride home --- the winner, Lucy Davidson, said she barely got back to to her place, and was horribly sick for the next several hours. Misleading information about the danger and how their body would react was given to the contestants. When told by others, on tape, about the potentially fatal consequences of what they were doing, the radio guys blew it off and went on as though nothing was said.

If this were just two idiot friends who didn't know better deciding to kill time one night by seeing who could drink the most water, I doubt there'd be a finding of liability on the survivor if one of them died. But in the case here, it's a radio station staffed by at least ten people, with the full weight and medical and legal expertise of a corporation, let it be repeated and stressed, who set up a contest that required planning and preparation, the dangers of which could have been easily discovered. The tape, which has them being told of the risks and acknowledging their awareness of it but doing nothing about it, just damns them to deeper ignomy.