I believe that a court of law will only accept such a warning as credible if it comes from an industry professional such as a doctor, registered nurse, licensed ME, etc. I beleive that a court would take such information under advisement if it comes from an orderly, and it would make note of the fact that a warning was provided by a construction worker but, under those conditions, since neither individual is considered an industry professional, such information content does not impose an obligation on the individual receiving the warning to act on it. In those situations, the warnings are considered opinions rather than medical fact. An, an opinion is what the DJs offered when they told the deceased that they didn't think her headache was important. The content only has meaning when such warning is issued by an individual who can prove to a court that they are qualified by profession to issue such information on the basis of proven medical fact.
And, the term "medical fact" has a myriad of interpretations in the medical profession. Medical fact tends to be tempered by both known and unknown pre-existing conditions. A "normal" person with no pre-existing conditions may be able to tolerate drinking 2 gallons of water (despite the potential for medical damage later) far better than someone who is diabetic or has a heart or blood condition. It's all a matter of degree.
Look, I know that you want to punish someone for this incident, and, in a way, I understand your point. But the fact remains that the deceased had the option of participating in the contest or not. And, as a participant, she has an obligation for her own health, safety and well-being. If you believe that she was blameless in contributing to or causing her own death, then you have to believe that humans are incapable of being responsible for themselves. That means that when you get out of bed in the morning, you don't get dressed until the weather guesser tells you exactly what to wear. And you don't eat or drink anything until the radio or TV nutritionist tells you exactly what you should eat or drink. And you don't go out of the house until someone in authority tells you that you have to go to work, school or the store. Etc., etc., etc. Frankly, I don't believe that you think any of those things, otherwise you'd have thrown the HillaryCare argument in just to stir things up.
No. The court is only concerned with the response to the warning, not the truth of the warning itself. The truth of the warning itself is evidenced by the death that resulted after the warning was brushed off. The court doesn't care if a plumber gave it. What they'll be looking at is the response. Note, they never challenged the nurses creds, they responded with remarks about how they could care less.
" such information content does not impose an obligation on the individual receiving the warning to act on it."
It requires the person warned to have a valid reason not to be concerned. Saying they don't care and flying a waiver, is not a valid response.
"In those situations, the warnings are considered opinions rather than medical fact."
Failure to demonstate due concern is not an option.
"An, an opinion is what the DJs offered when they told the deceased that they didn't think her headache was important. "
The DJs aren't entitled to give medical advice. They were doing so in this case. Note, the woman was sick and they explained to her what was happening. They were obviously wrong, because they said, "she was drowning". The obligation of a reasonable person in this case is to advise that they see a doc. Otherwise the act of doing what a prudent person would do is negligence. That is the basis of a large number of lawsuits. Person is ill, another diagnoses and recomends treatment. Not against the law, unless $s are taken in consideration, but it is an act of negligence, which can be the basis for a lawsuit.
"And, the term "medical fact" has a myriad of interpretations in the medical profession."
Legal facts are what matter here. Here, the law will be concerned with a warning and the response to that warning, as above.
"If you believe that she was blameless in contributing to or causing her own death, then you have to believe that humans are incapable of being responsible for themselves."
She dropped when she got sick, which was already too late. It's not reasonable to assume folks would be aware of the dangers here. It is reasonable to make sure that when you involve other people, that you do not injure them. That means you'll have to ask someone who knows. Then you take reasonable action to provide for their safety when their involved in the activity you dreamed up.
It really doesn't matter what you do personally. When you involve other people in any activity, then you must take care that no injury, or death results. When someone shows up for an event, the one putting on and inviting those to participate in that event has the duty to consider what could happen and how to prevent injury and death, especially when the nature of the event is deadly and it involves human life. That does not mean nanny care, it means reasonable care and true rational advisement. It's definitely not lawful to not care, as was demonstrated by the DJs.
"Frankly, I don't believe that you think any of those things"
I am probably one of the biggest risk takers, according to other people, in the country. When I buy something, one of the first things I do is to remove all the GD safety features, if I so desire. I do not use seat belts, airbags, helmets, whatever, unless I want to. I do not appreciate nannies whatsoever, I am not a nanny and do not support nannism whatsoever. I never involve other people in real risk whatsoever. In real life, no one has ever been injured, or killed on my watch. I would have never held this contest, because I would have looked into it first and determined, that it was simply a contest that must result in death, or approch it.