How much responsibility does Wii Woman have?

Question

(I asked this question in anothe category, but no one answered.)

For those who don't know the story, a woman died after drinking too much water trying to win a Wii. The radio station who hosted the contest is being sued for hosting the contest, encouraging her, and knowing the risks (I believe she was warned as well, and signed a waiver).

So, who holds more responsibility for her death? The woman for choosing to drink too much water, or the radio station for encouraging her?

Also food for thought: If you offered someone $20 to ski down a dangerous ski run, and they died doing so...are you responsibile for their death? How is this scenario any different?

Answer 1

She did it on her own.
What ever happened to personal responsibility?

They never directly caused her death, they just set up the circumstance.
If we are to assume they are responsible, then every car maker is also responsible for every death in a car accident because because they set up the circumstance but had no direct involvement.
Personal responsibility is one's own responsibility. I believe we have tried to blame others way too much.

Answer 2

Regarding Hansel's comments, there is no evidence that the contestants knew or were warned that there could or would likely be adverse consequences to the contest.

Most people are not aware that excessive intake of water (JUST WATER!) can, indeed, have fatal consequences. I did not know it until a college student here nearly died two years ago in a hazing incident involving excessive water drinking (the kids thought, since it wasn't alcohol, it was ok).

The radio station's representatives (DJ's), even admitted on-air that they knew the danger, when an RN called in and warned them. However, all the surviving contestants have said they could not hear the on-air comments, and they did not know of any danger.

The radio station did not do anything to save anyone's life, even when the woman complained of a headache and nausea after going home. They just laughed.

Personally, I hope the DA in their county charges them with criminally negligent homicide, because they knew the dangers, and persuaded uninformed people to engage in dangerous activity, with knowledge of the likely or probable fatal risks.

Regardless of signing a "waiver," a waiver signed without full disclosure would be invalid.

And, as for the ski slope ... if I offered an uninformed beginner $100 as an inducement to go down a double black diamond slope where there was avalanche danger, and they did it without knowing the danger or the seriousness of a double diamond rating, then, yes, *I* would be guilty of homicide if they suffered a fatal accident.

Answer 3

Well, the radio station was dumb for offering such a dumb contest, but the women could have chosen to either stop, or urinate once the contest was over, which she didn't. So that was pretty irresponsible on her part. I think she (and the radio station) must have thought that water is harmless.
No, you aren't responsible for the death of a person on the ski slope, because you didn't kill them, the dangerous ski slope and their own lack of skiing skill did, and maybe some chance too... but if you didn't feel guilty about it after they died, you'd be a real jerk.

Answer 4

I'm taking business law right now actually and this is very relevant to me. It has to do with liability. It would make sense that since she signed a waiver, and as long as the radio station did everything they could to save her life, they would not be liable for a freak accident like that. If they could prove that the radio station did something dangerous without informing participants of the risk in order to get better ratings, they would lose hard. I doubt if she really understood that too much water could kill you. I don't know. I'd like to see how they work it out.

Answer 5

I don't know if that woman understood the consequences of her actions, but it's obvious some of the employees at the radio station did. In this case I would say the radio station.

For the ski run I would blame the person because that's just obvious. Not everybody understands you can die from water intoxication even though they should.

Answer 6

That is really hard to say. Because they were warned on air, by a listener, about the possible consequences of the action. You would have to conclude that she heard that warning from someone in the medical field, and she chose to ignore it as the DJ cracked jokes about it. Now, had she stopped and heeded that warning, claiming ignorance before enlightenment, then I would think there should be a case.
But if she, herself heard that warning, then she made the conscience decision to ignore it. No liability! She was responsible for her own actions!

Answer 7

What is a Wii.?
If she was warned then they knew better and they should be sued .
If you pay someone to do something then you are responsible for what happens to them unless they insure them selves .
At least that is my limited understanding .

Answer 8

I think it's a case of both being as bad as the other. The deejays were dumb to suggest such a stunt and she was dumb enough to go through with it.

Ever read the Darwin Awards books? She'd be perfect for one.

Answer 9

the radio station is wrong for laughing at her when she said she have a headache...so they should pay something for that...and for her family....
If I paid someone to do something and they got hurt..it would be both of our fault...their fault for doing it and my fault for asking them too ..while knowing it was dangerous.....at the same time if i was the person who got paid to do that i wouldn't know to blame them or myself...

Answer 10

I believe that they both have some responsibility. They both knew the risk. In both cases.