Horribly Wrong: Divergent Views
I recently posted this on the Sacramento board:
Just wondering if any lawyers post here?
This case has intrigued, perplexed and angered me to the extent that I consulted two very reputable and experienced lawyers, friends, both of whom have radio-media experience.
One of the attorneys represents plaintiffs in matters very similar to this, such as personal injury and wrongfull death litigation. The other attorney defends companies such as the radio company or the insurance company that would be involved in matters similar to this case.
Both expressed sympathy for the victim and her family. Not surprisingly, each had a unique and differing opinion, each backed by case law, which will no doubt come into play in this matter, and precedent.
The lawyer who would defend the radio station told me this would be a very difficult case to defend before a jury because of the emotional coloration attached to the death of a young mother.
He explained, in legal terms, that this is not an open and shut case for the plaintiff (Ms. Strange's family, heirs and estate) because the burden would be on the plaintiff's attorney to prove that Ms. Strange could not have walked away from the contest and relieved herself at any time, as other contestants had, thus avoiding serious injury and death.
The enticement to win a prize cannot be considered "forcing the woman to drink water." Even the encouragement or admonishment from the morning show knuckleheads to encourage the contestants (and Ms. Strange) to "drink up or drop out" cannot be considered "forcing the woman to drink." The defense argument would be "she did it of her own volition and being of sound and rational mind, as an adult, she alone bears responsibility for her decisions and subsequent injury-death."
The fact that a nurse or certified medical person called the show to advise the hosts and participants of "the dangers of ingesting massive quantities of water without benefit of urinating could lead to serious injury" works both ways.
It could be argued that the participants were duly advised of the potential danger, yet the contestants made a reasoned choice to continue their participation. It will be noted that some contestants exercised their rights to leave of their own will and chose to drop out (relieve themselves.)
Conversely, plaintiff counsel might argue that the station personnel were advised that consuming massive quantities of water was dangerous and could lead to injury-death, yet continued their contest in a perilous and cavalier manner.
The plaintiff's (Ms. Strange's family) attorney agreed that this case would not be as easy to try as many of us "non-legal types" have (understandably) argued here. I guess this is why some folks endure three years of law school and a grueling bar exam and others (like me) choose to work in broadcasting.
Lacking a sound foundation, evidence and legal premise, it's conceivable that criminal charges may not be filed. When and if they charges are filed, prolonged and diligent review, might motivate a judge to dismiss the charges.
A civil injury trial is another matter. For the record, I am not a doctor or attorney.
-9-
I recently posted this on the Sacramento board:
Just wondering if any lawyers post here?
This case has intrigued, perplexed and angered me to the extent that I consulted two very reputable and experienced lawyers, friends, both of whom have radio-media experience.
One of the attorneys represents plaintiffs in matters very similar to this, such as personal injury and wrongfull death litigation. The other attorney defends companies such as the radio company or the insurance company that would be involved in matters similar to this case.
Both expressed sympathy for the victim and her family. Not surprisingly, each had a unique and differing opinion, each backed by case law, which will no doubt come into play in this matter, and precedent.
The lawyer who would defend the radio station told me this would be a very difficult case to defend before a jury because of the emotional coloration attached to the death of a young mother.
He explained, in legal terms, that this is not an open and shut case for the plaintiff (Ms. Strange's family, heirs and estate) because the burden would be on the plaintiff's attorney to prove that Ms. Strange could not have walked away from the contest and relieved herself at any time, as other contestants had, thus avoiding serious injury and death.
The enticement to win a prize cannot be considered "forcing the woman to drink water." Even the encouragement or admonishment from the morning show knuckleheads to encourage the contestants (and Ms. Strange) to "drink up or drop out" cannot be considered "forcing the woman to drink." The defense argument would be "she did it of her own volition and being of sound and rational mind, as an adult, she alone bears responsibility for her decisions and subsequent injury-death."
The fact that a nurse or certified medical person called the show to advise the hosts and participants of "the dangers of ingesting massive quantities of water without benefit of urinating could lead to serious injury" works both ways.
It could be argued that the participants were duly advised of the potential danger, yet the contestants made a reasoned choice to continue their participation. It will be noted that some contestants exercised their rights to leave of their own will and chose to drop out (relieve themselves.)
Conversely, plaintiff counsel might argue that the station personnel were advised that consuming massive quantities of water was dangerous and could lead to injury-death, yet continued their contest in a perilous and cavalier manner.
The plaintiff's (Ms. Strange's family) attorney agreed that this case would not be as easy to try as many of us "non-legal types" have (understandably) argued here. I guess this is why some folks endure three years of law school and a grueling bar exam and others (like me) choose to work in broadcasting.
Lacking a sound foundation, evidence and legal premise, it's conceivable that criminal charges may not be filed. When and if they charges are filed, prolonged and diligent review, might motivate a judge to dismiss the charges.
A civil injury trial is another matter. For the record, I am not a doctor or attorney.
-9-