I'm trying to think this thru. I am not a lawyer, but 'standing' might vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Does the family have legal standing to sue? On what grounds?
If Mrs. Strange signed a release on behalf of herself and her heirs and assigns, acknowledging risk, including injury and death, and willingly participated in the activity I don't see how they get standing. That boilerplate language isn't in these releases for nothing.
If I take my 2 year old to McDonalds for a "Happy Meal" and s/he decides to eat a small part of the enclosed toy, which comes in a bag warning that small parts are dangerous for children under 3, but I let him/her eat it anyway, and the child chokes and dies, do I have standing to sue McDonalds ?
In that case, of course, there's no release I'd have signed.
But I had been warned.
I think this family would find some interesting legal hurdles, but believe the station owners will settle quickly to get it behind them to avoid the cost of litigation and bad PR.
It'll sure be interesting to watch. In the meanwhile, I do pray for her family, it's such a shame those kids lost their mother and the husband his wife.
I'm not a lawyer either and I'm sure you are right the rules vary greatly by jurisdiction. But it is clear to me the family has legal standing to successfully sue for wrongful death. They did not sign a liability waiver and no one can sign away their legal rights for them. They experienced a personal loss so they have grounds to recover on that.
This is a very sad story. Because of that a jury will likely award a lot of money, right or wrong. I personally think there's too much money being awarded in civil trials and too many lawyers profiting too much off the misfortune of others.
In Jamaica they have a public tourist attraction where people climb rocks up a waterfall. This would never happen in America for liability reasons. The park has a permanent first aid station and ambulance on standby. I'm sure if you get hurt you're not getting much if any money from anybody. The vast majority of people do not get hurt and have a lot of fun. Should the waterfall be closed to all because some will certainly get hurt? The lawyer-free parts of the world are very different than America. Generally you only find trial lawyers where there are a lot of riches to confiscate.
Like most of those commenting, I am not an attorney. And like many I do have a smattering of experince with waivers for numerous things.
One thing I have learned from some hard experience, attorney friends, and contracting friends is that there is no such thing as a perfect boilplate waiver.
Someone brought up the example of auto racing and waivers. The waivers should stand as long as every reasonable action has been taken to avoid unnecessary death or injury. Think medical personnel (doctors, nurses, emts), fire personnel, ambulances, etc. Now imagine a death because you cut back on these basic emergency services due to cost or ignorance. Guess what - that will probably meet the definition of negligence.
BTW an online definitions of negligence is the failure to exercise that degree of care that, in the circumstances, the law requires for the protection of other persons or those interests of other persons that may be injuriously affected by the want of such care.
My money says the DJ's and anyone involved in putting on this contest were negligent and this will lead to corporate negligence as well.
The onus was on those putting on the contest (individuals and company) to be aware of any risks and provide some degree of care for those who may become injured.
As a contestant she had a right to be reasonably informed of any actual risks she may not have been aware of and to expect competent medical care in case something went wrong.
Something did go wrong. The negligence was so great a person died. A human being died who was not made aware of actual risks. Nor was she provided any medical care at all. Those at the station are fortunate only one person died.
Criminal charges? Some form of involuntary/negligent manslaughter would not surprise me.
Civil suits? The individuals (DJs and decision making staff) should lose a lot for their personal negligence and the company a pretty penny for such gross negligence in their hiring and oversight practices.
Mom's responsibility? Well, she already paid the absolute ultimate price - she is dead - for being negligent in where she placed her trust - DJs/Staff and company. Everyone one else can pay a price and eventually get on with their lives - hard lessons learned. Mom is dead. She will not get on with her life.
Again, I am not an attorney - just someone trying to think through this. And yes, I am a conservative who is often described as somewhere to the right of Rush Limbaugh.
BTW - IIRC, a marine died a few years back from the same problem during a long hot march. Back then few knew about water poisioning. Now they do and they make sure all of their personnel are aware of it as well.
RileyD, nwJ