Lawsuit Filed in KDND Case

[DeadElvis]

Media reports say that the Strange family through its attorney has filed suit in the KDND case. Defendants include:

Entercom (local and national)
Local GM John Geary,
Former KDND PD Steve Weed,
Former promo director Robin Pechota,
Ex-morning show producer Liz Diaz, and
The now-fired morning crew of Adam Cox, Steve Maney, Patricia Sweet and Matt Carter.

I have not yet seen any posting of the Complaint. Would be very interested to read it.

We also do not know who has been served yet. I am sure there are process servers fanning out all over Sacramento. And, so it goes.

DE, LL.M.

 

[collinbound]

Wrongful-Death Suit Filed Against KDND

Roger Dreyer
Attorney ROGER DREYER of DREYER, BABICH, BUCCOLA & CALLAHAM this morning filed a wrongful-death civil suit in SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT on behalf of the STRANGE family in relation to the death of JENNIFER STRANGE following ENTERCOM Top 40 KDND/SACRAMENTO's "Hold Your Wee For A Wii" water-drinking contest.

The defendants named include ENTERCOM/SACRAMENTO, ENTERCOM COMMUNICATIONS CORP., VP/Market Manager JOHN GEARY and since-dismissed PD/Station Mgr. STEVE WEED, Promotion Dir. ROBIN PECHOTA, morning show producer LIZ DIAZ and morning show members ADAM COX, STEVE MANEY, PATRICIA SWEET and MATT CARTER.

The suit seeks all expenses incurred plus undisclosed punitive damages and "such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper."

Read the full complaint here.


FROM ALL ACCESS...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[DeadElvis]

OK...

I have read the Complaint now. No big surprises; they brought claims I would have expected, and offered facts that are out in the Public.

They will have to amend certain aspects as this goes along, but, this does get the ball rolling.

They are praying for Punitive Damages, and may actually have some facts to justify it. We'll have to see how far this goes before settlement. And, bet... there will be a settlement.

DE

 

[Stage5Clinger]

Dead Elvis, since you seem to have insight on the law side of things, just how large of a settlement do you think they'll get. In addition, why should they settle when they have such a hands down case, and they could instead take all the way to the hilt, so to speak.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

In addition, why should they settle when they have such a hands down case, and they could instead take all the way to the hilt, so to speak.

1. It may not be as hands-down as they, or we, think. Depending on if the station vetted the contest, whether there were any rules, whether there was a warning of any possibly injury, etc., it could be found liable. We just don't know yet, because we don't know nearly everything. In fact, what we publicly know is very minimal to all of these determinations.

2. Settlement figures would be determined based on a number of factors, including age of the plaintiff, occupation, earning potential, etc. There are complicated charts and calculations that some economists with Ph.D.s spend hors figuring.

3. Along the same lines, the station (and/or its carrier) might decide to settle to avoid all of that expense. You're going to have a team of outside lawyers drafting pleadings, briefs, etc. Then the time to research these things, plus take discovery, deposing the parties and witnesses, investigating claims, etc. Then there is the hourly cost of hiring these investigators, hiring medical experts (a necessity), hiring broadcast ethics or broadcast contest experts, plus hiring the aforementioned economist(s) to calculate the death benefits.

It's a small fortune, and if the case could be settled (of course with no admission of liability by entercom, as most settlements say) for less than the sum of the cost to defend, most corporations will do that.

4. Why settle? Public relations--a settlement makes this whole thing a non-story. There's no trial, no conclusions possibly adverse to Entercom or the hosts, no "bad Entercom, look what they did" court pleadings to splash across the industry or Sac Bee pages.

These are all decisions for Entercom or its carrier to make. And it's the responsibility of the attorneys to be up front about all these things.

 

[Stage5Clinger]

Okay, thanks for the response. You sound like you know what you're talking about. I'm still curious about the dollar figure. I wonder if anyone on the boards knows a little more about that. I read in the Bee that the release they signed was for reproduction rights only, and nothing was in the release about liability regarding health and welfare of the individuals participating.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

I can't reasonably give a dollar figure because I just don't know enough--and I doubt anyone else here could give one either. We just don't know alot of important facts particular to this incident and its participants.

I can say one thing: unless California is different, punitive damages probably won't be recovered unless there's a showing of malice on the part of Entercom, management or the hosts. Everything I've seen probably doesn't support that finding. But, that's just what's public.

 

[DeadElvis]

I don’t know, of course, that there will be a settlement. But, I would just about bet the farm on it.

There is a lot at play here beyond just dollars and cents. As I wrote previously, and the JD a bit higher up the string noted, this is a PR nightmare in an industry where PR is a big, big issue. This is not a case I would want to take to trial. Every night, locals will turn on the TV and be reminded that horrible and callous mistakes were made. The tape will be played over and over again. The dollar value of that is incalculable.

Further, stopping this train sooner than later, and appearing to take responsibility for the harm caused, will play, at least in part, in the FCC’s calculus about what action to take, if any. I can’t put a price tag on that.

So, here’s how I think this will play out. There will be some motion practice and some limited Discovery. The Defendants will file Motions for Summary Judgment, claiming, among other things, No Duty and Assumption of the Risk. Those will likely fail. At that point, negotiations will begin in earnest.

What’s settlement value here? Who knows? A few lawyer buddies and I have kicked some figures around, but we could be way off. Arriving at such numbers is an inexact and rather messy affair – it leads one to the realization that some lives are, indeed, worth more than others. But, from what we see, Ms. Strange is the sort of decedent that might have high value – she was young, had children, was in good health (from what we have heard), and is generally sympathetic. She was not a big wager earner, it seems, so that does tilt the other way. The Survivor’s Action could be worth a bit. Facts seem to imply that Ms. Strange died slowly, alone, and in pain.

Now, as far as punitive damages are concerned, I am not entirely convinced the Plaintiff is without an argument here. From what I heard on the tape, I could certainly make an argument that the Defendant(s) was reckless -- indeed, exceedingly reckless. While I cannot speak for CA law, that might well give rise to a recovery in many jurisdictions.

Another issue on settlement might be who such a settlement covers. There are many defendants here, and don’t be surprised to see more added. One or more could cut deals, leaving the others to sway in the breeze. It’ll be interesting to see how the defendants divide themselves up as far as counsel is concerned.

And, so it goes…

DE

 

[Stage5Clinger]

Interesting, Dead Elvis. I hear that most of the staff, except for the PD and the GM, don't have any money. So what happens when a judgement is made on someone without the dinero? And, will they do actual jail time on an involuntary manslaughter due to not rendering aid charge, as the Sac Sheriff is seeking to file now? That little tid bit was in today's paper. They want to talk to all the callers that called and were on the air during the broadcast, and the ones that were screened out, as well.

 

[shooty]

NOW the lawyer wants to talk to all the listeners and callers involved? This case is two weeks old! What's he been doing? Sounds like he doesn't have enough to go on. Did the Strange's hire the right lawyer? And to the "what price" post? Go ahead, put a price on Jennifer Strange's life. Let's see what number you come up with. Don't mean this as an attack, but more of absurdity to think that someone thinks they can put a price on a life of a mother of 3.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

NOW the lawyer wants to talk to all the listeners and callers involved? This case is two weeks old! What's he been doing? Sounds like he doesn't have enough to go on.

Until now, he didn't have legal access to the names, call back numbers, or station tapes/logs of callers. With the suit filed, he can obtain this information from the station's records through subpoenas and other discovery mechanisms.

And to the "what price" post? Go ahead, put a price on Jennifer Strange's life. Let's see what number you come up with. Don't mean this as an attack, but more of absurdity to think that someone thinks they can put a price on a life of a mother of 3.

Well, that's correct. But it's done every day in courts across America. There is no price on a life, morally, but there is one economically, and that's why economists and accountants calculate the loss of companionship, lost wages, loss of comfort and care, as well as any survivorship pain and suffering claims.

 

[RadioStarOne]

Mother of three? Priceless! Simply Priceless!