Court awards $16.5m in 'Hold Your Wee for a Wii' radio stunt death

This took place in my home town of Sacramento. They are dumb asses. It's a shitty station anyway.

sure you could say the same thing about the mother....but we hold organizations at a higher level or responsibility than we do individuals....as we should....

We should definitely hold organizations to a higher standard. It's not like the mother had blind trust, we assume organizations wont make contests that lead to death. Why would anyone assume a radio station is out to kill them (unless its a pop music station; they kill us with their crap).

Probably because the station was assuming, which I feel is reasonable, that nobody would hold their pee TO DEATH.
I really think we should hold individuals to a higher accountability. I mean, organizations aren't really a thing, they are a group of individuals. Is it okay for individuals in the organization to act irresponsibly and say it's the organization's fault; it should've been more responsible?
I'm by no means glad a person died. And it's unfortunate that the kids lost their mother when she was trying so hard to make them happy. But she prioritized her health and well-being (and transitively the ability to care for her children) below getting a video game system. And that's the radio station's fault?
Why isn't it Nintendo's fault for not making enough supply to meet the demand?Why isn't it the water company's fault for allowing a deadly product to be distributed without warnings?
Why can't we live in a country where we admit that people make regrettable mistakes without passing the blame?

After reading some comments below, I feel I may have been a bit harsh. I spoke without knowing anything but sound-bite level information.
There are just so many cases of failure to be personally responsible, that it's easy to stereo-type a case where it seems easy to say "Why didn't she just pee?"

I think that's a perfectly fair point from Vcize, I don't think he should have got downvoted for that.

@Erluti: I agree with many of the things you're saying, but this case is a bit different. Holding the urine in her body for so long shifted the ph balance of her blood or some such business and the body has no way to protect against it. Think toxic shock syndrome, when the death is extremely sudden.

@ Chris D.
No-one has heard of "fraternity hazing," and I would assume you couldn't die from it. I guess the one positive of all this is that now we know how dangerous not pissing can be.

I'm sympathetic for the loss of their mother, but you can't lay all the blame on the person who planned this. Several people approved it, and people called in saying this was dangerous. She still went on with it. I understand she was trying to do something fun for her family, but personally I don't leave my health in the hands of others. A lot of blame lays on the radio station for hosting this stunt, but I think it's unfair to hold disdain against them saying "I hope they get theirs!". Jennifer should have been more cautious when participating in dangerous stunts. And before you say "she didn't know any better, she shouldn't have to look into the risks", that excuse isn't valid for the radio station personnel, I don't think it's valid for her either. We're all responsible for our own actions and decisions.

", that excuse isn't valid for the radio station personnel, I don't think it's valid for her either."

Except that since they were the ones hosting the contest it falls on their shoulders to do the research and ensure it's safe. If you ride a roller coaster at an amusement park it's not your responsibility to check the maintenance and safety records, that falls on the park. Same situation here, IMO.

" I understand she was trying to do something fun for her family, but personally I don't leave my health in the hands of others."


Also, this isn't true at all. You put your health in the hands of other any time you get in a vehicle you didn't build, go in a building you didn't build, take any medicine you didn't make, or eat anything you didn't prepare from scratch, etc, etc, etc... Your health is in the hands of other all the time.

Agreed Vidikron. I'm just trying to understand what kind of person, people, board, whatever, comes up with an idea like this and then takes it further by deciding that it's a good idea for people to actually participate in. Like, who approved this?

I buy a lot of food when I go to the grocery store, but I don't have the means to test it before I eat it (other than the tip of my tongue and my nose), so I have to trust the FDA knows that the eff they're doing.

Same thing here, IMO, too.

"Except that since they were the ones hosting the contest it falls on their shoulders to do the research and ensure it's safe."

The same thing could be said for sports, people get killed by head, neck, back, heart injuries... is that the fault of the sports team or the parks & recreation group? They voluntarily joined the contest and knew the risks, so are they entitled to 17 million dollars because they died?

Scissorz, the key word is negligence. If someone gets hurt on a sports field, and the owners/managers took every reasonable precaution, then it would be labeled an accident.

The station was negligent in this case. They failed to do adequate research, failed to have medical personnel on site, failed to respond to warnings, and failed to listen to the mother when she complained.

In that case, I completely agree with the lawsuit outcome, it's just that alot of people on here are making blanket statements.

Yeah Scissorz, it's not like they were offering her any type of medicine, or other precautionary items to prevent this incident. It would be a whole different story then.

They did it with complete reckless abandon.

@Ran: The problem here is that people that play sports are aware of what injuries they face. The radio station should have alerted the contestants to the health risks involved, especially when the nurse called and warned them and they ignored her (from what other commentors have said).

On a somewhat related noted: I hate most disc jockies.

Those rollercoaster and FDA analogies have got to be the two least applicable upvoted analogies I've ever seen on here, even though I agree this was a fair lawsuit.

Ok joystiq, I think you guys really need to just close off comments for this article. After reading through a lot of the comments on here and not to mention the original article posted, it is plain disgusting.

Where are the editors and the banning? Seriously I've seen more banning on an article concerning Jade Raymond then I have on here.

I'm all for freedom of speech and what not, but do we really need to be debating whether or not this woman was right/wrong?

It sounds to me like the court made that decision so end of story. All that is happening now in the comments section is a bunch of idiots looking to poke a fire. Sure we can downvote them into oblivion, but I think it would be better if we just turned of the comments, I think the article and the ruling by the judge are comment enough.

Let the idiots save their moronic comments for the next article on sales figures or dumb comment made by (insert video game ceo here)

Judging by how quickly they banned the spammer, I'd say they're monitoring things.

"Those rollercoaster and FDA analogies have got to be the two least applicable upvoted analogies I've ever seen on here, even though I agree this was a fair lawsuit."


Why? They seem to fit fine. The point is that since the radio station was holding the contest it was there responsibility to research risks, take safety precautions, and notify contestants of any of the risks. Which is exactly the same as any of the examples given.

Well, you might consider those analogies less appropriate as the FDA's primary function is to be concerned with safety and roller coaster designers fully understand the ramifications of poor engineering or construction and have to be licensed to do their job. On the other hand, I went to school with a high school drop out that got a job working as a DJ for a popular radio station. They guys can't really be held at the same standards as the FDA (doesn't mean that they shouldn't be though).

Heh... you've kind of crossed up the two analogies. The FDA (Food & Drug Administration) doesn't have anything to roller coasters. But you're right that they are more over a government oversight organization. They're one step back from the process (as compared to, say, a restaurant). But I see nothing wrong with the roller coaster example. It falls on the park to ensure the ride is safe just as I stated. And, likewise, it should have fallen to the radio station to ensure that their contest was safe.

I was citing the examples separately but in the same sentence. I did not mean to imply that the FDA is responsible for roller coasters, just the engineers and companies that design roller coasters.

I agree that, yes businesses are liable for their mistake. I am just saying that I have higher expectations that a roller coaster won't break than I have that a radio DJ designed a safe contest.

Sure, but I'd argue that the DJ alone isn't responsible and very likely didn't plan and write off on this contest by himself. Even if he did he was doing so as a representative of the company. It's the station as whole that is responsible.

Me
by the time she realized that she had taken it too far the damage was already done. Holding your breath for a contest is different, your body won't let you take it too far, it needs to breathe (try holding your breath as long as you can, if you manage to take it too far you pass out and your body starts breathing... not healthy, but certainly not leathal).
Drinking too much water is different. By the time she realized she wasn't feeling well, her body had already begun to shut down. Which is why she would have needed to go to a hosipital ASAP. Instead she went home, thinking she was just a little sick. By the time she was in pain, it was too late.
Also, it doesn't matter if she signed a waiver. She was uninformed of the true risks. (the station itself wasn't even aware of them, despite warnings)
It's a terrible tradegy, and to place any blame on the mother is unfair and useless IMO.

While you say I put my health at risk because I didn't make my car, I still do an inspection before I drive. I maintain my vehicle. I check the tire tread depth, check my belts, and for leaks before driving. I listen for off noises.

Just because food is in a grocery store, doesn't mean I assume it's safe either. Personally I check for freshness when I buy my food as opposed to just trusting "its on the shelf, it must be good". I've seen spoiled food before dated in the packaging, and I've seen tons of items past it's "Use By" date on the shelf. I think both of these arguments are moot for this reason.

Roller coasters aren't even a fair comparison as that's an attraction that thousands of people participate in daily. They also have safety precautions in place. I don't randomly ingest things assuming there's no repercussions. I don't assume that others are going to stop at a red light. I don't assume it's safe to cross the street just because the sign is flashing to cross. I don't take strangers on their word when they say "oh don't worry, my dog has never bitten anyone before". I take the necessary steps in these cases to procure my health.

You only have one life. Why risk it over anything that isn't another going to save another's life?

Again, I'm very sympathetic for this happening and losing someone very dear to them. I don't think the court is wrong in awarding this huge sum of money (even though it's no replacement I'm sure). It just really bugs me when people are so against the radio station and laying all the blame on them. It's annoying that people are basically saying that the radio station murdered her. It was an accident due to negligence from all parties involved. She's gone, the money has been awarded, let it go now.

@Bob:

Uhhhhhhhhh.... No. Just stop before you embarrass yourself further.

When you go to a restaurant you order food off the menu and eat it like everyone else on the planet, you don't ask to inspect the kitchen and every ingredient before every meal.

Similarly, at a supermarket I can guarantee you've bought frozen food and cooked it, without knowing its condition before freezing. Equally, you probably drink coke/beer/orange juice straight from the can/carton without checking if there are any impurities or dismembered fingers in it. When you take a bus, you don't check its tires or the engine, that's the bus company's liability.

And even sensory inspection doesn't prove anything, that hamburger you inspected, bought and cooked thoroughly could still give you E. Coli and its the job of the manufacturer to ensure it doesn't, just as its the job of the contest organizers to ensure their actions don't kill people. If they screw up, they get sued, just like Cargill gets sued for selling tainted meat.

Yeah, but you're also talking about grossly different things.

This is a contest. This is a stunt. By pure the world alone risks are involved. If a radio station has a contest "who can sit outside in the dead of winter on an ice block for the longest time before quitting" - You're an idiot if you blame the radio station for you getting hypothermia, a cold, the flu, frostbite, etc. I don't know how you can dodge your own accountability in such a scenario. This is exactly the same. It's not like water intoxification is some strange rare disease or occurrence. It's well documented for decades, if not centuries.

But yeah, let's scape goat the radio station and DJs. Let's wish more suffering and death. Point more fingers, that makes everything so much better. She was a helpless victim who was murdered by the cruel, twisted, negligence of the hosts of the contest. You're right.

How are those grossly different things?

Going on a rollercoaster is a thrill, jumping off an aeroplane or a bridge is a stunt, but if your parachute doesn't open you can bet your ass the person responsible at the parasailing school or bungee jumping company is getting sued.

For an even closer analogue, eating competitions are stunts and contests and yes, a little dangerous, but every organiser has medical personnel and an ambulance standing by in case the worst happens. That was clearly not the case here.

For the average person, water intoxication and its consequences are not memorable facts, you or I wouldn't know how much water one can drink without dying. But a person organising a water drinking contest really should have known and been aware of the risks, and either made them clear or prepared for the consequences. Neither happened, and thus every cent of that settlement is deserved.

Yeah. Apparently, Jennifer Strange even told the radio station that she was feeling ill and they completely ignored it. It's one thing to thing to be an on-air jerk, but to be a real life asshole and ignore someone who obviously needs medical attention? They deserved what they got, maybe more.

Well shit, I had no idea she even called them about it. I was always sympathetic to the Strange family, but this just nails it in.

Meh, I'll jump into the fray with this: this should have been a criminal case, not a civil one. The family doesn't deserve $16 million, that's a preposterous amount of money, but one that will make very little difference in the long run in terms of keeping these from happening again. But imprisoning those involved for wrongful death and criminal negligence, that would make a difference. I hate civil suits for things like this; they should only be used for what they were intended (breach of contract and what not), not every single thing under the sun. Until bodily harm and death stop becoming a chance to win the lottery, all the middle-ground idiots will continue abusing the court system as well.

@Aristokrat

You should realize a few things. First, the amount of 16 million dollars was awarded because the radio station, or parent company had at least that amount to spare - and I'm going to guess whatever corporation shelled out that the money has probably several times that amount. If I drive drunk and kill someone, then get sued I'll get taken for every last penny I have, with nothing left over. This ruling will definitely hurt the company, but not bankrupt it, and I'm sure this has sent a ripple through the entire radio industry to never allow anything like this to happen again. The next time any station even thinks about an idea similar to this all anyone has to do is remind them of this case, the life lost, and the enormous cost it had on the company.
Second of all, imprisonment is not the solution. I would much rather a huge corporation lose a chunk of money that benefits the family than an attempt to send anyone to prison that would surely result in dozens of appeals, more money spent on lawyers, and the tying up of our legal system for years, only to end up with nobody in prison.
And last... would you really rather send more people to prison that you and I as taxpayers have to pay for to feed and take care for however many years?
And last last... why don't you tell that family to their face that you don't think their mother is worth 16 million dollars. Or in other words, you don't think she's worth a fraction of what the radio station is worth.

Yeah, I don't know how those European countries do it without civil damages suits. They must have really high crime rates and problem with people taking personal responsibility.

I think that monetary punishment is exactly the reason why these stupid things happen over and over. I'd also wager that monetary damages are why things get tied up in court for so long, because if their lawyer gets to take a 10% cut of $16 million, that dude is going to fight for a long-ass time. Without these insane pay-offs to lawyers, you think they take the case? Without the threat of losing $16 million, you think these companies are willing to spend millions on their defense (which incentivizes lawyers to take a long-ass time due to the idiotic "billable hour")?

I'd also wager that we spend more through the trickle-down of things like malpractice insurance than we do imprisoning people. I know the prison industry is huge, and I think there are some people who shouldn't be in there, but that's another story.

Finally, this is not about the worth of a life. Does this mean that if I wanted to, I could have just handed that family $16 million and then murdered the lady, because it's an even trade? The valuation of life or injury is inherently flawed and is a worthless concept. Incidents like this happen a lot, we just happen to hear about it because it's related to one of our hobbies (I'd never heard about if until today). Monetary punishment is not a big enough deterrent to large companies, because lots of times it's built into their business model, which ultimately implies that they expect to harm or kill people in the course of business. Yeah, sounds like things are working out fine like they are.

Actually, I think you're just a big pile of human trash, but that's just me.

Anyone else have an opinion?