In "The End", Who's Responsible?

[cabradio]

Re: Who Indeed?

That would only be true if she was knew the parameters of the contest (how much would she be asked to drink, and at what interval) ahead of time - facts which were not available to her. It is my understanding that she was restricted to a kitchen area during the contest, and did not have access to the on-air warnings from callers, or to Internet access so she could do her own research into "water intoxication". She relied on the inaccurate assurances of the radio station staff that the contest was safe.

Listen to the audio. The staff was made aware that water intoxication was dangerous, said that "they knew all about it", and joked about the possibility of a contestant dieing. The contestants weren't able to hear the callers who warned of a possibly fatal outcome. They just heard that "they'd puke before they could drink too much water", and that "the body is 98% water, so how could drinking too much water hurt you". That puts the staff squarely on the hook for the outcome.

Hmm. I thought the contest was widely publicized. That would mean she had to know, or should have known exactly what the contest entailed. She had plenty of time to do an Internet search herself from home or the local library, or work (a medical office where such information is widely available), prior to the contest and if she would have found what I found about hyponatremia, she probably would have participated anyway. Everything I have found has shown only very certain circumstances are lethal when it comes to "water intoxication". Not only that, but I imagine she had plenty of time to ask around her medical office and get EXPERT advice. Maybe she did, and disregarded the advice, or maybe the advice was bad! There is no way of knowing, unless/until some people speak up. This is all speculation because we also don't know what other "issues" she may have had, or what she did when she got home. She could have guzzled a bottle of Pepto Bismal...and maybe that shocked her system...like I said it's speculation until the results are final.

As far as the callers...the "nurse" that called....can you tell someone's credentials over the phone from an anonymous call? I could call a station and say I am a fireman, or a detective, or a vacuum salesman...how can they know that a nurse REALLY called? And if anyone listening was that concerned, why didn't they call the police, or the medics to stop the contest? My point is that it really seemed like a harmless event. And I'll reiterate a point I made in another post on this subject, if she hadn't died, NO ONE would be screaming that this was an inappropriate contest. As a matter of fact, if it had been a complete success, I'm sure people would be lauding it as a fantastic idea.

People are all out to hang Entercom because of the bitterness of their experience with corporate radio. People are angry for other reasons and they are using this tragic event to lash out. Shame on you all. You are exploiting the woman's death for your own (dis)satisfaction.

Look at this event for what it TRUELY is. An accident. A tragic event in radio's history. Our prayers go out to the children as they are victims in the tragedy as well. Can you imagine how they feel? Their mom died trying to win a stupid contest so they could have a Playstation Wii. The guilt they must have...

 

[SirRoxalot]

None Are So Blind...

Hmm. I thought the contest was widely publicized. That would mean she had to know, or should have known exactly what the contest entailed.

I doubt that the exact amount of water, and at what intervals, was offered to contestants in advance. Once again, the presumption of a contestant would normally be that the radio station would NOT put them in a dangerous situation.

She had plenty of time to do an Internet search herself from home or the local library, or work (a medical office where such information is widely available), prior to the contest and if she would have found what I found about hyponatremia, she probably would have participated anyway.

Now there's an assumption that makes an A$$ out of someone.

Everything I have found has shown only very certain circumstances are lethal when it comes to "water intoxication".

We've already covered this ground, and demonstrated that a simple Google search for "water intoxication" raised serious red flags IN THE FIRST ARTICLE IT FOUND. It has also been established that the staff was aware that a student undergoing hazing in Chino died of water intoxication, albeit under much more stressful circumstances. At the very least, they should have sought competent medical advice on the safety of the event. If they did, then some medical expert needs to be on the hook with them.

Not only that, but I imagine she had plenty of time to ask around her medical office and get EXPERT advice. Maybe she did, and disregarded the advice, or maybe the advice was bad! There is no way of knowing, unless/until some people speak up.

Once again, you're ASSUMING that she decided to enter the contest the day before, when she was at work. Once again, you're ASSUMING that the specific details of the contest were available, and you're ASSUMING that she expected a radio station to put her in danger.

This is all speculation because we also don't know what other "issues" she may have had, or what she did when she got home. She could have guzzled a bottle of Pepto Bismal...and maybe that shocked her system...like I said it's speculation until the results are final.

There's NO speculation that the radio station failed to protect its contestants before, during, and after the contest. If they had brought in qualified medical personnel to evaluate the participants in a contest that at the very least was physically stressful, and at worst was deadly, we probably wouldn't be discussing this. It sounds like negligence on the part of the radio station to me.

As far as the callers...the "nurse" that called....can you tell someone's credentials over the phone from an anonymous call? I could call a station and say I am a fireman, or a detective, or a vacuum salesman...how can they know that a nurse REALLY called?

Obviously, you don't know the credentials of a caller. Just as obviously, if you get a call expressing concerns about the safety of the contestants, don't you think it would be wise for YOU to check with competent medical authorities to determine whether the contest was dangerous?

And if anyone listening was that concerned, why didn't they call the police, or the medics to stop the contest? My point is that it really seemed like a harmless event.

When you're listening to the radio, you don't really know the amount of water being given to the contestants, and very few listeners pay rapt attention for several hours and track the amount of water being consumed. The callers who expressed concern were also told "We know all about water intoxication. We had them sign waivers." Reasonable people would ASSUME that the radio station did indeed research the contest, and would not knowingly put contestants in mortal danger. There's that word ASSUME again. The flip response from the air talent proved to be chilling in hindsight.

And I'll reiterate a point I made in another post on this subject, if she hadn't died, NO ONE would be screaming that this was an inappropriate contest. As a matter of fact, if it had been a complete success, I'm sure people would be lauding it as a fantastic idea.

Propriety is one thing. Danger is something entirely different. Some people would have copied the contest. Some people also abuse their listeners, and other minority groups. Note that I listed their listeners as a minorty group, because MOST people don't get their kicks out of listening to morons abusing other people.

People are all out to hang Entercom because of the bitterness of their experience with corporate radio. People are angry for other reasons and they are using this tragic event to lash out. Shame on you all. You are exploiting the woman's death for your own (dis)satisfaction.

In my mind, Entercom will pay the money here, but I doubt that corporate was directly involved in this contest. It was the local folks who screwed this up. Some of them have been fired, and have paid a price. A lot of people who work in the building and had absolutely NOTHING to do with this event are paying a price, and may have to deal with this event shadowing them for a long time to come.

Look at this event for what it TRUELY is. An accident. A tragic event in radio's history. Our prayers go out to the children as they are victims in the tragedy as well. Can you imagine how they feel? Their mom died trying to win a stupid contest so they could have a Playstation Wii. The guilt they must have...

I'm sure that there is plenty of guilt to go around, but this is hardly an accident. This is an example of gross negligence, hubris, and failure on the part of both talent and management. I hope that the kids remember their mom as caring so much for them that she tried to win them something special. Her death is a tragedy that they'll have to live with for the rest of their lives, but it was hardly their fault - or hers.

 

[DeadElvis]

The letter that the Strange family's counsel sent to the FCC is, indeed, illuminating. One line, I think, lays out what counsel will argue is the primary act or omission giving rise to negligence:

"The radio station allowed her to leave the premises without any type of assistance or concern."

Big problem, both legally and morally. They also mention, "Our investigation has revealed that the management of the radio station did no investigation or research into the dangers of this contest." Again, interesting. This is a claim that management is responsible for its own negligence, not just for the failings of the employees. Such negligence can go pretty high up the chain. Certainly, this line certainly implies that the GM, at least, will be served. We'll see how far up they go.

They will doubtless lay out more, including recklessness, when the Complaint is filed, but I think this is their case in a nutshell. And, it will be expensive for the defendants. Folks often forget that beyond possible payouts, the defendants also have to spend cash defending a case such as this. Even if they were to win (which I can't imagine), it will cost thousands and thousands to pay the lawyers. I hope The Morning Rave has some cash in the bank. They're gonna need it!

DE

 

[wcrzx]

Interesting in that the letter also said she worked in a medical office. wonder how come none of her co-workers warned her.

They forgot to mention that on the tape she says " I can drink more" doesn't sound like she was in serious condition at that time.

 

[SirRoxalot]

COMPETENT Medical Authority

Interesting in that the letter also said she worked in a medical office. wonder how come none of her co-workers warned her.

Perhaps her co-workers weren't glued to the radio from 6AM on tallying up the amount of water that Mrs. Strange was consuming - IF they were able to determine the size of the water bottles from the broadcast. Perhaps her co-workers assumed that the radio station - who admitted that they knew of a condition called water intoxication and that it could be deadly - had researched that condition and/or already sought competent medical advice to make sure that they wouldn't be putting Mrs. Strange in mortal danger.

They forgot to mention that on the tape she says " I can drink more" doesn't sound like she was in serious condition at that time.

Since the radio station had NO COMPETENT MEDICAL STAFF available, how would they know if her condition was serious?

The very first listing that comes up in a Google search for "water intoxication" - Wikipedia - lists the following symptoms:

Initial symptoms typically include light-headedness, sometimes accompanied by nausea, vomiting, headache and/or malaise. Plasma sodium levels below 100 mmol/L (2.3g/L) frequently result in cerebral edema, seizures, coma, and death within a few hours of drinking the excess water. As with alcohol poisoning, the progression from mild to severe symptoms may occur rapidly as the water continues to enter the body from the intestines or intravenously.

According to the recording posted by the Sacramento Bee, Mrs. Strange complained of "not feeling well" (nausea), a headache, and had a distended abdomen - which would indicate that there was a lot of water in her intestines that hadn't yet been assimilated by her body.

I'm not a medical expert by any means, but it would seem that reasonable people might be able to determine that Mrs. Strange should at least be held under observation for a period of time until her distended abdomen returned to normal. A morning host or hostess saying "Are you OK?" doesn't absolve them of responsibility, especially since they didn't correctly warn contestants of the possible effects of massive rapid water consumption in the first place.

Unless someone offers new evidence, I believe that we've exhausted this topic. I'm willing to rest my case and turn it over to the jury to decide who's right - those on the Profit/wcrzx side, or those who believe that the radio station is responsible.

 

[Stage5Clinger]

A letter to SirRoxaLot and those like minded...

SirRoxalot, and others with sensiblities, you are never going to get through to Profit/wcrzx/NeanderPaul or any of the others that keep posting because, I believe, they work with, have worked with, or are part of the people that were fired from the Morning Grave. They don't understand the point of the code of broadcasters "operating in the public interest," and I believe for the right money they would continue to egg on unsuspecting listeners in whatever smarmy contest that would boost their ratings. They also refuse to listen to any of the evidence in the case that points to culpability ie., the on air comments, blatent disregard for the listeners, or the points made by her family's lawyer. We are wasting our breath, and time trying to get through. Justice will prevail, and already has by the firing of those loons in the first place.

 

[DeadElvis]

> you are never going to get through to Profit/wcrzx/NeanderPaul...

Not gonna try. It's tough, sometimes, explaining the law to non-lawyers.

DE

 

[wcrzx]

Just so I can set the record straight. Is it a tragedy Of course. But

1. I DO NOT OR NEVER HAVE worked in Sacremento or for Entercomm nor do I know anybody who works for them.
2. My thoughts have nothing to do with profits. My concern is NOBODY is putting any blame on the contestant for a contest that was purely VOLUNTARY.Whatever happened to PERONSAL RESPONSIBILTY for your actions. It seems it is always the other persons fault. It's was tha jocks faults. It was the scholls fault etc. That is my main complaint!!

I imagine that 90% of the people who have spoken out about this would have run the constest if it was brought to them.

 

[dbdigital]

Re: COMPETENT Medical Authority

Interesting in that the letter also said she worked in a medical office. wonder how come none of her co-workers warned her.

Since the radio station had NO COMPETENT MEDICAL STAFF available, how would they know if her condition was serious?

Someone in an earlier post mentioned the risky stunts of "Fear Factor" as being no different then what KDND was doing and that the participants of 'Factor' know what they're getting in to and do so willingly. This is true, but as we know Fear Factor takes reasonable precautions to protect their contestants with harnesses, tethers, padding, etc. And having watched a Fear Factor episode being filmed in my neighborhood, they do have some medical personnel present during the shoot (at least they did on that occasion). All of these precautions not only show a responsibility to the contestants but is cheap legal insurance in the event of a stunt going awry.

KDND should have had a physician, or at least a nurse, present during this contest. At least they could have argued that some measure of precaution for the benefit of the participants was taken. As it is, they haven't a legal leg to stand on.

db

 

[wcrzx]

How True How true.

It's funny that nobody sees the point we are trying to make!

 

[DyingMedium]

No...I see the point you're trying to make...But, your point is dulled by the fact that you refuse to see KDND/Entercom's culpability in this situation.

You scream about personal responsibility yet fail to recognize the part played in this tragedy by the radio station. It's obvious, for whatever reason, how badly you want it not to be the radio station's fault.

And, no, I never would've run this contest. Doesn't make me a saint, but it makes me smarter than KDND and the Morning Rave.

--DM

How True How true.

It's funny that nobody sees the point we are trying to make!

 

[wcrzx]

Ever run a Sit in it to win it, Eating contest. Both could be deadly.
Does the station hold some responsibilty yes. But to fire 10 people, people saying pull their license etc. Way to overboard

 

[DyingMedium]

Nope...have never run or been involved in those contests. However, I do know several people who have run a sit-to-win contest. Medical staff was on hand at all times for those.

As for the firing of 10 people...I can't speak to that since it was Entercom's decision and they aren't talking. I do feel bad for those staff members who are being affected this, but had no part in the promotion/contest.

If you're creative, there are so many different ways to promote your station or run a contest. Why do anything that could put your audience in danger? You're just asking for trouble.

Ever run a Sit in it to win it, Eating contest. Both could be deadly.
Does the station hold some responsibilty yes. But to fire 10 people, people saying pull their license etc. Way to overboard

 

[SirRoxalot]

The End

Ever run a Sit in it to win it, Eating contest. Both could be deadly.
Does the station hold some responsibilty yes. But to fire 10 people, people saying pull their license etc. Way to overboard

Any "sit in it to win it contest", and other endurance contests of that ilk that I've ever seen had periodic rest periods for contestants to allow them to eliminate bodily wastes, stretch, and move around. The purpose of those rest periods is to prevent possible complications like Deep Vein Thrombosis, toxemia, etc.

As far as eating contests are concerned, any that I've been involved with had medical personnel standing by, and the food being eaten wasn't toxic in the amounts available for consumption.

Firing 10 people may not be enough. I think that this goes all the way to GM's office, and his job should be in jeopardy as well. As far as pulling the license is concerned, unless someone can show where corporate signed off on this, I don't advocate that punishment.

 

[AnaHadWolves]

Since I started this post, many of you have offered sound arguments pro and con on the issue. Thanks to those who took the time to join the discussion.

The one thing I would add is the principle of "Assumed Risk". I'm not an attorney, but, I believe the core of the theory is that, by taking part in the water-drinking contest, the woman assumed the risk(s) of that contest. She was an adult and no one forced her to do so. However, if the Entercom crowd didn't have ALL contestants sign a "hold-harmless" agreement, shame on them. (And, yes, DyingMedium, I am in the biz, working in the top market on-air and have been doing so for twenty years, so, don't be an obnoxious twit, ok? : )

Bottom line, when that shiny-suited shyster of a lawyer (have the FCC repeal the station's license? Oh, too funny!) entered the picture, you could just see him whipping the local yokels into a froth and a frenzy...hoping to stampede Entercom into either an admission of guilt or a settlement without trial.

Note to Entercom: don't take the bait! Demand a jury trial and hammer home the "Assumption of Risk" principle. You may end up paying SOMEthing to the woman's family, but, it won't be outrageous. Plus, that shyster will have to settle for less for his share. Pity :'(

 

[cabradio]

I have not worked for Entercom. I'll gladly share my resume with everyone who asks to see it. My websites are listed in my signature. I can provide references that will attest to the fact that I have not worked for Entercom. I do not know ANYONE at Entercom Sacramento, I may not know anyone who works for Entercom at all. I do know who Neanderpaul is, but don't know him personally. So that debunks that argument against my opinion in this matter. I happen to not agree with the "popular opinion" here.

I have also clearly stated in other posts that I believe Entercom was irresponsible/negligent (however you wish to phrase it) for NOT having a health care professional on site before, during and after the contest. It is imperative to ascertain the contestants health through the whole contest, especially for any "endurance" type contest. So don't misunderstand my point of view. I do think Entercom needs to be held accountable for that.

However I also believe there is a certain amount of personal responsibility on the contestants part. She should have known her own limits. And, since it appears that she worked in a medical office (according to the paperwork filed to the FCC that is floating around), so it would be fair to "assume" that she had access to information about "water intoxication" and hyponatremia.

I argue that "water intoxication" is not a regular occurance and has only happened under specific circumstances not similar to this situation. I learned this from reputable health industry websites, not "wikipedia" which is a site managed by the general public (not health care professionals) and is very general in it's definition. I will gladly relink you to them if you ask...they are in one of my earlier posts either in this thread or another...

I also think it's a shame that so many people are out to lynch Entercom for what amounts to being a very tragic accident. I also see alot of bitterness towards Entercom that seems to stem from a dissatisfaction of how "Corporate Radio" manages stations (short playlists, firing qualified staff, bad promotions etc). I think this situation has become a vehicle for these individuals to vent their frustrations. And I think using a freak accident to champion this cause (dissatisfaction of corporate radio) is wrong.

Next...

 

[DeadElvis]

> I'm not an attorney, but, I believe the core of the theory is that, by taking part in the water-drinking contest, the woman assumed the risk(s) of that contest

Well, I am one. And, while it goes beyond the scope of this Board to fully discuss Assumption of the Risk, I'll make a few comments.

First, for the defense to work, KNOWLEDGE MUST BE ACTUAL. That requirement is most often strictly construed. Ms. Strange, or any other similarly-situated plaintiff, must full FULLY aware of all the risks involved. Do we have facts to fit this? It certainly seems logical that had she known the risk was as high as it was, she would not have participated (and, yes... I do see some bootstrapping in that statement).

Further, in most states, Assumption of the Risk is not considered a complete defense. It is merely thrown into the calculus of comparative fault. That being said, I don't know CA law; I ain't a CA lawyer. I am sure counsel on both sides will fully inform their respective clients as to the correct law.

It has been suggested that Entercom take this to trial. Madness, I would assert. A sympathetic jury could essentially "run away" in this case, and the jury award could be amazing. There is always a risk, though; one never really knows what a jury will do. But, as I have stated, there are other concerns here. Frankly, the PR aspect of the way Entercom has handled this boggles the mind. A trial would get massive media coverage from local TV to Nancy Grace. The intangible costs here simply cannot be calculated.

There is a lot in the air here. Much of the discussion has been a bit facile to this point. Perhaps better to let the process play itself out?

DE

 

[SirRoxalot]

Sour Note

Note to Entercom: don't take the bait! Demand a jury trial and hammer home the "Assumption of Risk" principle. You may end up paying SOMEthing to the woman's family, but, it won't be outrageous. Plus, that shyster will have to settle for less for his share. Pity

"Assumption of Risk" is only valid if you outline the risks that the contestants are assuming. If Entercom has a signed release advising contestants the the amount of water provided would likely lead to water intoxication, and that water intoxication can lead to death, then I get your point. If not, then your "Assumption of Risk" leans more toward the "Assumption" that a radio station will not run a contest that is dangerous to the contestants.

As far as Entercom's response, they may be far better off settling this out of the public eye than allowing it to fester while the legal system slowly grinds through its process. I'd hate to trust a jury to be lenient with a huge corporation with billions of dollars in assets if they found that corporation liable in the death of Mrs. Strange.

 

[Neanderpaul]

The original post was moved by a moderator. I understand the reasoning behind editing, but there's pertinent information contained within it that I'm re-posting. I would hope that the Moderators would allow legitimate criticism to exist.



I don't "understand the point of the code of broadcasters "operating in the public interest," It makes me laugh that people pull this card when things go wrong but completely ignore the hundreds of thousands of dollars that KDND, and their corporate owner raises every year for UC Davis Medical Center. How many lives do you think have been saved due to their fundraising efforts. Should the FCC relax the station's tax obligations for those years? Is that not "operating in the public interest?"

There's an old saying amongst bikers: "Nobody Remembers The Good We Do...Nobody Forgets The Bad."

"Radio professionals" are so quick to eat their own, it's amazing. I'm not absolving anyone on air of stupidity. I think I've been very clear on that. I have merely been as pragmatic as possible when considering this whole thing. Accidents are just that. I think this was a tragic accident. A contest that has been performed thousands of times over the years with no ill effects, resulted in the unfortunate death of a listener. Rather than offer support to those involved, some people, have chosen to immediately blame the station, the corporate owners, management, the performers, and everyone....while ignoring the personal responsibility of the contestant. And if I'm omitting names, there's a reason. It's not personal. It's because this is what it is...a horrible combination of ignorance, and decision making that nobody involved could, or would have possible forseen.

Again...prior to this event. There is no documented case of an otherwise normal healthy adult, who did not engage in either forced ingestion, or physically strenuous behavior, dying from this. The odds were so miniscule, and the potential so benign that it was unfathomable on everybody's part that this could've happened. The fact that the contestant was given opportunity to walk away, and chose to continue to participate needs to be considered. Even upon her decision to withdraw, she proclaimed a willingness, and ability to proceed. there's no evidence suggesting she was in any danger at all. The "nurse" even provided incorrect information when she stated "yes..i guess so" when the host asked if she'd vomit involuntarily.

And yet...several people are forming a lynch mob, and are throwing their hands up in disgust. When you know damn well that not a word would have been uttered had this accident not happened.

Accidents are just that. It's tragic, but nobody needs to be put in jail, or have their FCC license pulled over this. It was a terrible accident. And one that all involved will have to pay for for the rest of their lives. Living with the guilt of this is punishment enough for the hosts. Try to put yourself in their shoes for a moment.

What if you run someone over on the way home from work tonight that voluntarily crossed in front of your vehicle?

The "public interest" argument holds zero merit. It's a copout. The station has operated in the public interest for years. One accidental death should not shut down an entity that has been a good "public citizen" for all of it's existence. An extremist reaction. Overdramatic, and uneccessary.

This was death by misadventure. An unfortunate result of bad decision making. By all involved.

The melodrama is staggering.

 

[cabradio]

Re: Sour Note

"Assumption of Risk" is only valid if you outline the risks that the contestants are assuming. If Entercom has a signed release advising contestants the the amount of water provided would likely lead to water intoxication, and that water intoxication can lead to death, then I get your point. If not, then your "Assumption of Risk" leans more toward the "Assumption" that a radio station will not run a contest that is dangerous to the contestants.

If the amount of water provided would "likely lead to water intoxication", then why didn't more contestants suffer from it? The fact remains that the odds of someone suffering from water intoxication were slim because they weren't exercising. Every site I have read about water intoxication says IT IS RARE, and USUALLY ONLY FOUND AMONG ATHLETES who are dehydrating and are trying to replentish their fluids while exercising.

It is common knowledge that if you drink too much of anything in a short period of time your body will want to expel it. The water intoxication is a result of other factors in combination with drinking too much water, usually exercising. People were prepared to throw up, in order to have a chance at winning. I think the premise was to be, who would throw up last...no one anticipated even the possibility of death. Its TOO RARE of an occurance and has only happened with extenuating circumstances. If you think they should have then death should be considered for every contest, even silly trivia games. Maybe radio stations should anticipate death with EVERY aspect of it's operation...from ensuring the safety of it's traffic directors who suffer from constant headaches, to the janitor who may accidentally mix bleach and amonia.

By the way, further research on hyponatremia shows that there are other causes, not just taking in to much water. Will it be revealed that Mrs. Strange was on some medications that were already diluting her sodium? Draw your own conclusions.

From Medscape.com.Hyponatremia can result from several disease states, injury, surgery, physical exercise, or the administration of certain drugs (e.g., antidepressants, antiepileptics) and is associated with advanced age.

From emedicine.com. Hyponatremia can be caused by many medications. Known offenders include acetazolamide, amiloride, amphotericin, aripiprazole, atovaquone, thiazide diuretics, amiodarone, basiliximab, angiotensin II receptor blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, carbamazepine, carboplatin, carvedilol, celecoxib, cyclophosphamide, clofibrate, desmopressin, donepezil, duloxetine, eplerenone, gabapentin, haloperidol, heparin, hydroxyurea, indomethacin, ketorolac, levetiracetam, loop diuretics, mirtazapine, mitoxantrone, nimodipine, oxcarbazepine, opiates, oxytocin, pimozide, propafenone, proton pump inhibitors, quetiapine, sirolimus, ticlopidine, tolterodine, vincristine, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, sulfonylureas, trazodone, tolbutamide, venlafaxine, zalcitabine, and zonisamide.